Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Omana v. Office of Personnel Management

October 13, 1999

RODOLFO C. OMANA,
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, RESPONDENT.



Before Newman, Rader, and Schall, Circuit Judges.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam.

DECISION

Rodolfo C. Omana petitions for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board's (Board's) final decision that affirmed the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM's) denial of his request for an annuity under the Civil Service Retirement Act (CSRA), 5 U.S.C. § 8331 et. seq. See Omana v. Office of Personnel Management, No. SE-0831-98-0172-I-1 (March 4, 1999). The August 4, 1998 initial decision of the administrative Judge became the final decision of the Board on March 4, 1999, when the Board denied Mr. Omana's petition for review for failure to meet the criteria for review set forth in 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115. We affirm.

DISCUSSION

I.

Mr. Omana worked with the United States Navy as a civilian employee at Subic Bay in the Philippines from June 21, 1951, until December 8, 1989. Although no documentation shows the nature of his service from June 21, 1951 through April 30, 1959, the record indicates a service computation date of June 21, 1951. Mr. Omana served under an indefinite appointment in the excepted service from May 1, 1959 until his retirement on December 8, 1989. It is undisputed that no retirement contributions were ever deducted from Mr. Omana's pay.

On February 5, 1993, Mr. Omana applied for a retirement annuity in connection with his service. OPM denied the application, however, because it determined that Mr. Omana's service under an excepted, indefinite appointment was excluded from Civil Service Retirement coverage under 5 C.F.R. § 831.201(a)(12) and (a)(13). Mr. Omana appealed to the Board, which affirmed the denial.

Addressing first the period from June 21, 1951 through April 30, 1959, the Board concluded that Mr. Omana's employment during this period was not covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). The Board noted that Executive Order 10,180, which was in force on June 21, 1951, provided, subject to certain exceptions, that "all appointments in the executive branch of the Government shall be made on a nonpermanent basis." See Exec. Order No. 10,180, sec. 1, 15 Fed Reg. 7745 (1950). The Board observed that such nonpermanent appointments were excluded from the CSRS. See id., sec. 3. The Board further observed that there was no evidence that retirement deductions were ever taken from Mr. Omana's pay under the 1951 appointment. Under these circumstances, the Board reasoned, Mr. Omana had failed to establish CSRS coverage.

As far as the period from May 1, 1959 to December 8, 1989 was concerned, the Board noted that Mr. Omana's service during this period was specifically designated as "indefinite." The Board pointed out that "service under such appointments is not covered by the CSRS," citing Rosete v. Office of Personnel Management, 48 F.3d 514 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The Board also pointed out that no retirement deductions were taken from Mr. Omana's pay under the 1959 appointment. Accordingly, the Board rejected Mr. Omana's claim of entitlement to an annuity based upon his employment with the Navy from 1959 to 1989.

II.

Our scope of review in an appeal from a decision of the Board is limited. Specifically, we must affirm the Board's decision unless we find it to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or unsupported by substantial evidence. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703; Hayes v. Department of the Navy, 727 F.2d 1535, 1537 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Mr. Omana has the burden of demonstrating his entitlement to annuity benefits. See Cheeseman v. Office of Personnel Management, 791 F.2d 138, 141 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

The statute governing eligibility for an annuity provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

§ 8333. Eligibility for annuity

(a) An employee must complete at least 5 years of civilian service before he is eligible for an ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.