Abiera v. Office of Personnel Management , 490 F. App'x 339 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •          NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    __________________________
    FLORENCIA A. ABIERA,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
    Respondent.
    __________________________
    2011-3193
    __________________________
    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
    Board in SF0831100609-I-1.
    ___________________________
    Decided: July 13, 2012
    ___________________________
    FLORENCIA A. ABIERA, Olongapo City, Philippines, pro
    se.
    AUSTIN M. FULK, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litiga-
    tion Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of
    Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With him on
    the brief were STUART F. DELERY, Acting Assistant Attor-
    ney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and
    REGINALD T. BLADES, JR., Assistant Director.
    ABIERA   v. OPM                                         2
    __________________________
    Before BRYSON, PROST, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.
    DECISION
    Florencia A. Abiera petitions for review of a decision
    of the Merit Systems Protection Board that she is not
    entitled to a survivor annuity under the Civil Service
    Retirement System (“CSRS”) and is not eligible to make a
    deposit into that system to cover the period of her hus-
    band’s federal service. We affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    Santiago J. Abiera, the petitioner’s deceased husband,
    worked for the Department of the Navy during the follow-
    ing periods: from May 2, 1945, to February 15, 1946; from
    September 20, 1948, to April 28, 1950; and from Novem-
    ber 14, 1950, to December 31, 1976. During the first two
    periods, Mr. Abiera served under “excepted temporary”
    appointments. Mr. Abiera’s third period of service began
    as an “excepted temporary—intermittent” appointment
    but was subsequently converted to an “excepted indefi-
    nite” appointment. On December 31, 1976, Mr. Abiera
    was separated from service because of physical inability
    to perform his duties. At that time, he received 28
    months of retirement pay in accordance with the retire-
    ment system under which he was covered, the Filipino
    Employment Personnel Instructions (“FEPI”).
    After his separation from service, Mr. Abiera applied
    to the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) for a
    CSRS annuity. OPM denied the application, and Mr.
    Abiera appealed the denial to the Board. The Board
    3                                            ABIERA   v. OPM
    affirmed OPM’s decision in September 1981, holding that
    Mr. Abiera was not entitled to an annuity because none of
    his service was covered under the CSRS. In November
    1982 the Board denied Mr. Abiera’s request to reopen the
    appeal and reconsider the initial decision.
    In 1998, after Mr. Abiera’s death, Ms. Abiera sought
    death benefits based on her deceased husband’s federal
    service. OPM denied that application because Mr. Abiera
    had not made any contributions to the Civil Service
    Retirement and Disability Fund (“the Fund”) and there-
    fore no lump sum death benefit was payable under the
    CSRS. Ms. Abiera requested reconsideration of the
    denial, but OPM denied that request because it was
    untimely. Ms. Abiera sought review of that decision by
    the Board, but the Board upheld OPM’s decision. Mr.
    Abiera filed a petition for review of that decision by the
    full Board, but the petition was dismissed as untimely
    filed.
    In 2008, Ms. Abiera applied to OPM for a survivor
    annuity and requested that she be allowed to make a
    deposit to the Fund to cover her husband’s federal service.
    After OPM denied her request, Ms. Abiera appealed to the
    Board, which affirmed OPM’s decision. After the full
    Board denied Ms. Abiera’s petition for review, she sought
    review by this court.
    DISCUSSION
    As explained by the administrative judge, there are
    two types of federal service at issue in determining enti-
    tlement to benefits under the Civil Service Retirement
    Act (“CSRA”)—“creditable service” and “covered service.”
    See Noveloso v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 
    45 M.S.P.R. 321
    ,
    323 (1990), aff’d, 
    925 F.2d 1478
     (Fed. Cir. 1991). Almost
    ABIERA   v. OPM                                            4
    all federal service is creditable service. Covered service is
    more limited in scope, referring to federal employees who
    are “subject to” the CSRA, i.e., employees who must
    deposit part of their basic pay into the Fund. 
    Id.
     In order
    to receive an annuity under the CSRA, a federal employee
    must have at least five years of creditable service. 
    5 U.S.C. § 8333
    (a). The federal employee must also have
    served in a covered position. 
    Id.
     § 8333(b). Except in the
    case of separation due to death or disability, that service
    must be for at least one year during the last two years
    before separation. Id.; see Quiocson v. Office of Pers.
    Mgmt., 
    490 F.3d 1358
    , 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A person is
    entitled to survivor benefits only if the deceased individ-
    ual was a covered employee or retiree at the time of his or
    her death. 
    5 C.F.R. § 831.112
    (b). For the purpose of
    survivor annuities, deposits to the Fund may be made by
    survivors of covered employees. 
    5 U.S.C. § 8334
    (h).
    Service under temporary, intermittent, and indefinite
    appointments, such as Mr. Abiera’s, is not considered
    “covered service” under the CSRA. See Exec. Order No.
    10,350 (relating to employment after December 1, 1950); 
    5 C.F.R. § 831.201
    (a)(1), (2), (6), (13). Therefore, the Board
    correctly found that Mr. Abiera’s service, while creditable,
    is not “covered.” The evidence before the Board supports
    the Board’s decision that Mr. Abiera did not have the
    requisite covered service under the CSRA. First, Mr.
    Abiera’s SF-50 forms (“Notification of Personnel Action”)
    refer to his retirement coverage as “other” or “none.”
    Those designations support a finding that his service was
    not covered. See Arcinas v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 
    82 M.S.P.R. 603
    , 606 (1999). Second, Mr. Abiera did not
    contribute any funds to the Fund during his service. The
    fact that no retirement contributions were made is a
    further indication that is service was not covered. See
    Quiocson, 
    490 F.3d at 1360
    . Third, Mr. Abiera received a
    5                                            ABIERA   v. OPM
    retirement payout from FEPI, a system separate from the
    CSRS. A payment from a separate retirement system is
    an indication that the employee was not covered by the
    CSRS. 
    Id.
    The question whether Mr. Abiera’s service was cov-
    ered is not a new issue. The same issue was previously
    adjudicated in 1982 when the Board determined that Mr.
    Abiera was not covered under the CSRA. In 1998, when
    Ms. Abiera applied for death benefits, OPM again deter-
    mined that Mr. Abiera’s service was not covered by CSRS.
    Accordingly, as found by the administrative judge in this
    case, Ms. Abiera’s claim is barred by issue preclusion. See
    Kroeger v. U.S. Postal Serv., 
    865 F.2d 235
    , 237 (Fed. Cir.
    1988).
    Even apart from issue preclusion, Ms. Abiera’s claim
    fails on the merits. Ms. Abiera refers to a number of
    statutes and regulations in support of her contention that
    she is eligible for a survivor annuity and that she is
    entitled to make a contribution to the Fund, thereby
    triggering her right to annuity payments. Those argu-
    ments all fail for the simple reason that Mr. Abiera was
    not subject to the CSRA during his service and therefore
    did not have the requisite “covered” service. Because Mr.
    Abiera was not subject to the CSRA, Ms. Abiera is not
    entitled to make a deposit to the Fund under 
    5 U.S.C. § 8334
    (h).
    Ms. Abiera argues that Executive Order 9154 estab-
    lishes that her husband was a covered employee because
    the order refers to eligibility based on “continuity of
    service,” Exec. Order 9154, reprinted at 
    7 Fed. Reg. 3275
    ,
    and that under Hawco v. Office of Personnel Management,
    
    52 M.S.P.R. 290
     (1992), he was entitled to CSRS benefits.
    In Hawco, the Board found that because the appellant
    ABIERA   v. OPM                                           6
    was separated from service prior to August 30, 1954, the
    fact that he had later creditable (but not covered) service
    did not deprive him of any annuity to which he was
    entitled as a result of his earlier service. 52 M.S.P.R. at
    295. While Mr. Abiera appears to have been separated
    from service in February 1946, Hawco is inapplicable to
    his case because Mr. Abiera did not accumulate the
    requisite five years of creditable service prior to his 1946
    separation and because there is no evidence that any of
    his prior service was “covered” service that would entitle
    Ms. Abiera to a survivor annuity. We therefore affirm the
    Board’s decision that Ms. Abiera is not entitled to a
    survivor annuity and is not entitled to make a deposit to
    cover her late husband’s federal service.
    No costs.
    AFFIRMED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2011-3193

Citation Numbers: 490 F. App'x 339

Judges: Bryson, Per Curiam, Prost, Reyna

Filed Date: 7/13/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023