McGrath v. Opm

Case: 19-2187 Document: 30 Page: 1 Filed: 05/29/2020
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RICHARD J. MCGRATH,
Petitioner
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent
______________________
2019-2187
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DC-0841-18-0798-I-1.
______________________
Decided: May 29, 2020
______________________
RICHARD J. MCGRATH, Fairfax Station, VA, pro se.
DOUGLAS T. HOFFMAN, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by JOSEPH H.
HUNT, STEVEN JOHN GILLINGHAM, ROBERT EDWARD
KIRSCHMAN, JR.
______________________
Before CHEN, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
Case: 19-2187 Document: 30 Page: 2 Filed: 05/29/2020
2 MCGRATH v. OPM
HUGHES, Circuit Judge.
Richard McGrath petitions for review of a final decision
of the Merit Systems Protection Board affirming the Office
of Personnel Management’s decision declining to credit 87
days of military service toward his retirement annuity un-
der the Federal Employee Retirement System. Because
the Board’s decision is in accordance with the law and is
supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.
I
Mr. McGrath served honorably in the United States
Army from July 1, 1968 to April 7, 1976. Mr. McGrath then
served a total of 87 days in the Army National Guard of
Connecticut between 1977 and 1978.
Mr. McGrath was subsequently employed by the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), where he worked un-
til he retired in 2015. When the PTO Human Relations
Office calculated Mr. McGrath’s active military service for
purposes of estimating his Federal Employee Retirement
System (FERS) annuity, the PTO included the 87 days of
National Guard service. The U.S. Office of Personnel Man-
agement (OPM) later calculated Mr. McGrath’s active mil-
itary service for FERS and did not credit those 87 days.
Mr. McGrath asked OPM to recalculate his FERS annuity
to include his National Guard service. OPM responded,
stating that the PTO’s inclusion of his 87 days of National
Guard duty was in error.
In its initial decision of March 28, 2018, OPM found
that Mr. McGrath was not entitled to receive credit for his
National Guard service in the computation of his FERS an-
nuity. OPM affirmed this finding in a final decision on Au-
gust 22, 2018. In that final decision, OPM stated that
Mr. McGrath’s National Guard service was not creditable
because it was not “performed under either a ‘call’ by the
President or an ‘order’ by the Secretary of State.” J.A. 231.
Case: 19-2187 Document: 30 Page: 3 Filed: 05/29/2020
MCGRATH v. OPM 3
Mr. McGrath appealed OPM’s final decision to the Merit
Systems Protection Board.
On June 13, 2019, the Administrative Judge affirmed
OPM’s final decision. McGrath v. Office of Pers. Mgmt.,
No. DC-0841-18-0798-I-1 (M.S.P.B. June 13, 2019). In her
decision, the Administrative Judge explained that service
in the National Guard was ordinarily not creditable “mili-
tary service” under 5 U.S.C. § 8411(c)(1), which provides
such credit for “each period of military service.” The stat-
utory definition of “military service” at 5 U.S.C. § 8401(31)
excludes service in the National Guard, “except when or-
dered to active duty in the service of the United States or
full-time National Guard duty (as such term is defined in
section 101(d) of title 10) if such service interrupts credita-
ble civilian service under this subchapter and is followed
by reemployment in accordance with chapter 43 of title 38
that occurs on or after August 1, 1990.” The second excep-
tion, for full-time National Guard duty, applies only to ser-
vice performed after August 1, 1990. The Administrative
Judge found that this exception thus did not apply to
Mr. McGrath’s service in 1977 and 1978. Mr. McGrath
does not contest this finding on appeal. The Administra-
tive Judge then determined that Mr. McGrath’s service in
the National Guard also did not fit within the first excep-
tion, being ordered to active duty in service of the United
States. The Administrative Judge held that, for the service
to be creditable under the first exception, Mr. McGrath was
required to show by a preponderance of the evidence that
either he or his unit was formally called into service by the
President or the Army National Guard of the United
States.
The Administrative Judge’s initial decision became the
final decision of the Board on July 18, 2019. Mr. McGrath
timely petitioned for review. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
Case: 19-2187 Document: 30 Page: 4 Filed: 05/29/2020
4 MCGRATH v. OPM
II
Our review of a decision by the Board is limited. The
Board’s decision may only be reversed if we conclude that
it was “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without
procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been
followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence[.]”
5 U.S.C. § 7703(c); see Lengerich v. Dep’t of Interior, 454
F.3d 1367, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Board’s interpreta-
tion of statutes, however, is a question of law that this
Court reviews de novo. Lengerich, 454 F.3d at 1370.
Mr. McGrath argues that the Board misinterpreted the
governing statutes when it determined under what circum-
stances service in the National Guard would be creditable.
Specifically, Mr. McGrath argues that the Board improp-
erly interpreted 10 U.S.C. § 12602, which concerns general
compensation and benefits for members of the Army Na-
tional Guard of the United States. Mr. McGrath argues
that the 87 days of service at issue should be considered “in
Federal service as a Reserve of the Army” under either
§ 12602(a)(1) or (2).
In its final decision, the Board considered § 12602 but
determined that it did not relieve Mr. McGrath of the re-
quirements set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 8401(31). That section
provides definitions specific to FERS and explicitly states
that creditable military service “does not include service in
the National Guard except when ordered to active duty in
the service of the United States.” 5 U.S.C. § 8401(31).
We agree with the Board’s interpretation. The provi-
sions of 10 U.S.C. § 12602(a) do not render creditable, for
purposes of FERS, National Guard service that does not fit
within the exceptions provided by 5 U.S.C. § 8401(31). Sec-
tion 12602 concerns benefits for reserve components of the
Army. Definitions for those purposes may differ from defi-
nitions for purposes of FERS, a civil service retirement sys-
tem governed by chapter 84 of Title 5. If, as Mr. McGrath
Case: 19-2187 Document: 30 Page: 5 Filed: 05/29/2020
MCGRATH v. OPM 5
asserts, members of the Army National Guard are always
deemed to be in federal service by virtue of their continuous
membership in the Army National Guard of the United
States, even when serving as members of the Army Na-
tional Guard of a state, there could be no National Guard
duty that is not in federal service—and § 8401(31)’s re-
quirement that creditable National Guard service be “in
the service of the United States” would be mere surplusage.
Cf. 10 U.S.C. § 12401 (“Members of the Army National
Guard of the United States and the Air National Guard of
the United States are not in active Federal service except
when ordered thereto under law.”).
We conclude that the Board did not err in holding that
Mr. McGrath must show that, for the 87 days in dispute,
he was formally ordered into federal service, pursuant to
Title 10, by the President or other federal authority. Clark
v. United States, 322 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (hold-
ing that “members of the National Guard only serve the
federal military when they are formally called into the mil-
itary service of the United States” (citing Perpich v. Dep’t
of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990))). Other courts have con-
sistently drawn the same distinction. See id. at 1366–68
(collecting cases). Substantial evidence supports the
Board’s factual finding that neither Mr. McGrath nor his
unit were formally called into federal service during the 87
days at issue.
III
We have considered Mr. McGrath’s additional argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea-
sons, we affirm the Board’s decision.
AFFIRMED
No costs.