NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2009-3057
FEDERICO REMORIN,
Petitioner,
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent.
Federico Remorin, of Subic, Philippines, pro se.
Lauren A. Weeman, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With her on
the brief were Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson,
Director, and Steven J. Gillingham, Assistant Director.
Appealed from: Merit Systems Protection Board
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2009-3057
FEDERICO REMORIN,
Petitioner,
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent.
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in SF0831080417-I-1.
___________________________
DECIDED: June 8, 2009
___________________________
Before NEWMAN, SCHALL, and DYK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Federico Remorin (“Remorin”) petitions for review of a final order of the Merit
Systems Protection Board (“Board”). The Board affirmed an Office of Personnel
Management (“OPM”) determination that Remorin was ineligible to make a deposit to
the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (“Fund”). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In 1959, Remorin was hired by the Department of the Navy (“Navy”) as an
asphalt plant operator in Subic Bay, Philippines, under an indefinite excepted service
appointment. He was subsequently transferred or promoted several times, each time to
another temporary or indefinite excepted appointment. On February 7, 1992, Remorin’s
appointment was terminated due to a reduction in force.
On June 22, 2007, Remorin submitted an application to OPM seeking to make a
deposit to the Fund so as to be eligible to participate in the Civil Service Retirement
System (“CSRS”). By letters dated September 14, 2007, and March 19, 2008, OPM
denied Remorin’s application on the ground that he had never served in a position
covered by CSRS. Remorin appealed, and on July 22, 2008, a Board administrative
judge affirmed. On October 16, 2008, the full Board declined to reconsider the initial
decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
DISCUSSION
Our review of Board decisions is limited. We must affirm the Board’s decision
unless it is “(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 also Lary v. U.S. Postal Serv., 472 F.3d 1363, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Under 5 U.S.C. § 8334(c), an “employee” may make a CSRS deposit to receive
credit for years of service during which time retirement deductions were not made.
OPM has promulgated regulations defining “employee” for this purpose as either a
current employee in a covered position, or a former employee who obtained retirement
annuity rights pursuant to a previous separation from a covered position. 5 C.F.R.
§ 831.112(a).
There is no question that Remorin was not employed in a covered position at the
time of his application. The Board found, and Remorin did not dispute, that all of
Remorin’s appointments from 1952 through 1992 “were either NTE (not to exceed)
appointment[s] or indefinite appointment[s] in the excepted service.” Pursuant to
2009-3057 2
statutory authority, OPM’s regulations specifically exclude from CSRS coverage
temporary and indefinite appointments. 5 C.F.R. § 831.201(a)(1), (2), (6), (13), and
(14); see also 5 U.S.C. § 8347(g); Rosete v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 48 F.3d 514, 519
(Fed. Cir. 1995). Because Remorin was never separated from a covered position, the
Board correctly determined that he was not entitled to make a CSRS deposit in order to
obtain a federal retirement annuity. We have repeatedly rejected similar claims by other
former employees of the Navy’s Philippines facilities. See, e.g., Quiocson v. Office of
Pers. Mgmt., 490 F.3d 1358, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Rosete, 48 F.3d at 520. The
decision of the Board is affirmed.
No costs.
2009-3057 3