Inocencia M. Esteban v. Office of Personnel Management

978 F.2d 700, 978 F.3d 700, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 28120, 1992 WL 311892
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedOctober 30, 1992
Docket92-3004
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 978 F.2d 700 (Inocencia M. Esteban v. Office of Personnel Management) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Inocencia M. Esteban v. Office of Personnel Management, 978 F.2d 700, 978 F.3d 700, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 28120, 1992 WL 311892 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

Opinion

ARCHER, Circuit Judge.

Inocencia M. Esteban petitions for review of the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (board), No. SE08319110047 (August 6, 1991), which made final the February 5, 1991 initial decision of the Administrative Judge (AJ) sustaining the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) determination that Esteban *701 was not eligible for a civil service retirement annuity. 49 M.S.P.R. 421. We affirm.

I.

Esteban’s application to 0PM for a deferred retirement annuity pursuant to the Civil Service Retirement Act (CSRA) was denied. In requesting reconsideration by 0PM, Esteban acknowledged that civil service retirement deductions had never been withheld from her salary, but contended that her service nonetheless entitled her to annuity benefits. 0PM again denied the. application and Esteban appealed to the board.

In the initial decision, the AJ found that Esteban was employed as a computer clerk with the Philippine Insular Government from October 22, 1923 to December 31, 1931 and from January 6, 1934 to November 14,1935. Under the authority of Unta-lan v. Office of Personnel Management, 30 M.S.P.R. 297, 299 (1986), the AJ determined that this employment was creditable service for civil service retirement purposes. According to the initial decision, Esteban also was employed by the Department of the Army from February 19, 1920 to December 31, 1922 as a laundry worker; from June 10, 1946 to December 21, 1946 as a senior draftsman; from April 1, 1947 to July 19, 1947 as a computer clerk; and from April 1, 1948 to April 6, 1948 as a computer clerk. The AJ found that no retirement deductions were ever withheld from Esteban during any period of service and that no evidence was presented to show that she occupied a civilian position covered by the CSRA. The AJ, therefore, concluded that Esteban was not eligible for retirement benefits because she did not meet the covered service requirement of 5 U.S.C. § 8333(b) (1988).

II.

A. The current requirements of the CSRA to be eligible for an annuity are that (a) the employee must complete at least five years of creditable civilian service; and (b) within the last two years before any separation from service the employee must complete at least one year of covered service. 5 U.S.C. § 8333 (1988). The statute states in pertinent part:

Eligibility for Annuity
(a) An employee must complete at least 5 years of civilian service before he is eligible for an annuity, under this sub-chapter.
(b) An employee or Member must complete, within the last 2 years before any separation from service, except a separation because of death or disability, at least 1 year of creditable civilian service during which he is subject to this sub-chapter before he or his survivors are eligible for annuity under this subchap-ter based on the separation____ Failure to meet this service requirement does not deprive the individual or his survivors of annuity rights which attached on a previous separation.

Id. Because Esteban did not show that she had any covered service, the board correctly determined that she did not have annuity rights under current law.

B. The last sentence of section 8333(b) provides, however, that a failure to meet the covered service requirement will not “deprive the individual or his survivors of annuity rights which attached on a previous separation.” This provision precludes the divestment of annuity rights where the employee on a prior separation from employment satisfied the eligibility requirements under the law in effect at that time. Therefore, to determine whether Esteban is entitled to an annuity, we also must apply the civil service retirement law in effect when she was separated from her Philippine Insular Government position, as well as her Department of the Army positions.

The first periods that Esteban claims entitle her to annuity rights are service as a computer clerk with the Philippine Insular Government from October 22, 1923 to December 31, 1931 and from January 6, 1934 until November 14, 1935. 1 On both dates *702 of separation for these periods of service, retirement annuity rights were governed by the 1930 Act. 2 Act of May 29, 1930, ch. 349, 46 Stat. 468 (1930).

Under the 1930 Act, an employee to whom the Act applied was required to have 15 years of service to be eligible for a civil service retirement annuity upon retirement or separation from service. Id. §§ 1, 7, 46 Stat. at 468, 474. The date on which the annuity would commence depended on the employee’s age and method of termination of service, whether by retirement, or voluntary or involuntary separation. See id.

Esteban’s separation on November 14, 1935 was considered to be involuntary because the Philippine Insular Government ceased to exist upon the formation of the Philippine Commonwealth Government. The record is unclear as to whether Esteban’s separation on December 31, 1931 was voluntary or involuntary. In neither case, however, was Esteban then entitled to either an immediate or a deferred annuity because she did not have the required 15 years of service. Moreover, with respect to her involuntary separation, Esteban did not show that she had attained the age of 45, required for a deferred annuity, or 55, required for an immediate annuity. And, with respect to any voluntary separation, she did not establish that she satisfied the age requirements for annuity eligibility. Finally, Esteban has not shown that she was an employee to whom the Act applies *703 within the meaning of section 3 of the 1930 Act. Id. § 3, 46 Stat. at 470. Although her service with the Insular Government was properly recognized as creditable service by the AJ, which under section 5 of the 1930 Act could have been taken into account in computing the amount of an annuity if she were otherwise eligible, Esteban . failed to satisfy the basic eligibility requirements of the 1930 Act.

C. On January 24, 1942, Congress significantly amended the 1930 Act. Pertinent here are the amendments to section 3, 3 which made the civil service retirement law broadly applicable to government employees subject to Presidential power to exclude intermittent and temporary employees, and to section 7, 4 which provided for a deferred annuity at age 62 for employees having at least five years of service at the termination of their employment. Act of January 24, 1942, ch. 16, 56 Stat. 13 (1942).

The President exercised the power provided by section 3 in Executive Order No. 9154, thereby excluding various classes of employees from coverage under the 1942 Act. 5 Exec. Order No. 9154, 3 C.F.R.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Sera v. Office of Personnel Management
184 F. App'x 974 (Federal Circuit, 2006)
Gajete v. Office of Personnel Management
180 F. App'x 974 (Federal Circuit, 2006)
Ragados v. Office of Personnel Management
180 F. App'x 917 (Federal Circuit, 2006)
Gaudencio A. Begosa v. Office of Personnel Management
98 F.3d 1357 (Federal Circuit, 1996)
Estanislao A. Eguita v. Office of Personnel Management
95 F.3d 1168 (Federal Circuit, 1996)
Erlinda Y. Guzman v. Office of Personnel Management
79 F.3d 1165 (Federal Circuit, 1996)
Nemesio Avila v. Office of Personnel Management
79 F.3d 128 (Federal Circuit, 1996)
Taurino C. Lim v. Office of Personnel Management
70 F.3d 129 (Federal Circuit, 1995)
Vicente C. Escusa v. Office of Personnel Management
62 F.3d 1431 (Federal Circuit, 1995)
Henry N. Felarca v. Office of Personnel Management
64 F.3d 677 (Federal Circuit, 1995)
Esteban D. Cava v. Office of Personnel Management
64 F.3d 674 (Federal Circuit, 1995)
Lucia A. Dela Cruz v. Office of Personnel Management
64 F.3d 672 (Federal Circuit, 1995)
Noli S. Nacpil v. Office of Personnel Management
64 F.3d 672 (Federal Circuit, 1995)
Paulo Z. Carpio v. Office of Personnel Management
64 F.3d 672 (Federal Circuit, 1995)
Corsino G. Dalindin v. Office of Personnel Management
62 F.3d 1432 (Federal Circuit, 1995)
Jose T. Santos v. Office of Personnel Management
62 F.3d 1433 (Federal Circuit, 1995)
Jaime A. Florita v. Office of Personnel Management
60 F.3d 841 (Federal Circuit, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
978 F.2d 700, 978 F.3d 700, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 28120, 1992 WL 311892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inocencia-m-esteban-v-office-of-personnel-management-cafc-1992.