Smith v. Office of Personnel Management

593 F. App'x 985
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Smith v. Office of Personnel Management. Read the opinion of the Court — 578 F. App'x 973
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit·Decided December 4, 2014·No. 2014-3167·Unpublished

Opinion

*986 PER CURIAM.

Wilma Smith appeals the Merit Systems Protection Board’s final order affirming the Office of Personnel Management’s denial of her request for survivor annuities or benefits based on the service of her deceased spouse, Troy Smith. In order to qualify for survivor annuities or benefits, Ms. Smith would have to establish, among other things, that her husband was employed in a federal civilian service position covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) or the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). Because we find no evidence that Mr. Smith was ever employed in a covered civil service position, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Beginning on July 8, 2011, Ms. Smith sent a series of emails to the Office of Personnel Management requesting surviv- or benefits. Ms. Smith alleged eligibility for benefits based on Mr. Smith’s service in the Merchant Marine from 1982 until his death on August 4, 1997. On November 9, 2011, after finding no record of any federal civilian service by Mr. Smith, the Office of Personnel Management denied Ms. Smith’s request. On June 13, 2013, Ms. Smith filed an appeal with the Board. The administrative judge found that Ms. Smith had failed to submit evidence showing that Mr. Smith ever served in a position covered by the CSRS or the FERS, or that Mr. Smith had ever contributed to a civil service retirement fund.

On November 6, 2013, Ms. Smith petitioned the full Board to review the administrative judge’s decision. Ms. Smith argued that her eligibility for benefits was established by the fact that Mr. Smith served in the Merchant Marine during the Gulf War, contributed to the Seafarers Fund, and had Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) and federal tax payments withheld from his pay. The Board found Mr. Smith’s FICA and federal tax deductions irrelevant, and found that the Seafarers Fund is a private pension plan unrelated to the CSRS or the FERS. The Board affirmed the administrative judge’s decision on July 2, 2014. This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

DISCUSSION

The scope of our review in an appeal from a decision of the Board is limited. We must affirm the Board’s decision unless 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).

I

Retirement from federal civilian service is governed by the CSRS or the FERS. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 8331-8351, 8401-8480. Federal employees covered by the CSRS as of June 30, 1987, could elect to transfer to the FERS. Killip v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 991 F.2d 1564, 1565 (Fed.Cir.1993). Because Ms. Smith alleges that her husband was in civilian service from 1982 until his death on August 4, 1997, we address Ms. Smith’s eligibility for annuities or benefits under both the CSRS and the FERS.

Eligibility for survivor annuities or benefits under the CSRS and the FERS requires, at minimum, the deceased spouse to have been at some time employed in a service position covered by the CSRS or the FERS. 1 Generally, service in the Mer *987 chant Marine is not covered by the CSRS or the FERS. 2 While some mariners in the Merchant Marine appointed by the United States during wartime may have received retirement credit under the CSRS prior to March 24, 1943, see id., Congress excluded appointed Merchant Marine service from such coverage on March 24, 1943. See Pub.L. No. 78-17, 57 Stat. 45 (codified at 50 U.S.C. app. § 1291) (“[Because of the temporary wartime character of their employment ... [mariners] shall not be considered as officers or employees of the United States for the purposes of ... the Civil Service Retirement Act....”). The FERS covers, with some exceptions, service covered by the CSRS. Bain v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 978 F.2d 1227, 1229 (Fed.Cir.1992).

Certain service in the Merchant Marine may be considered in computing annuities or benefits under the CSRS or the FERS, but such service does not by itself establish CSRS or FERS eligibility. Wartime service in the Merchant Marine may be approved as active duty military service for purposes of laws administered by the Veterans’ Administration. See G.I. Bill Improvement Act of 1977, Pub.L. No. 95-202, 91 Stat. 1449 (1977) (codified at 38 U.S.C. § 106 note); 32 C.F.R. § 47.1(b); OPM Handbook § 20A2.2-13(A)(2); see also Schumacher v. Aldridge, 665 F.Supp. 41, 43, 56 (D.D.C.1987). Both the CSRS and the FERS consider certain military service for purposes of computing annuities or benefits, see 5 U.S.C. § 8411(c)(l)(A)-(B); Roman v. CIA, 297 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed.Cir.2002), even though service in the Merchant Marine is not covered by the CSRS or the FERS. 3 Service in the Merchant Marine, however, even if approved as military service, does not establish eligibility under the CSRS or the FERS because military service is not civilian service covered by the CSRS or the FERS. See Brown v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 872 F.2d 401, 402 (Fed.Cir.1989); Bain, 978 F.2d at 1229.

Coverage by the CSRS or the FERS is generally indicated by evidence from the employment record. See Whalen v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 959 F.2d 924, 928 (Fed.Cir.1992); Ros ete, 48 F.3d at 516. Traditional indicia of covered civil service include a government service (GS) grade rating, evidence of civil service retirement contributions, or evidence of formal appointment to federal civilian service. See Whalen, 959 F.2d 924, 928 (Fed.Cir.1992); Rosete, 48 F.3d at 516.

II

Ms. Smith makes three arguments on appeal. First, Ms. Smith argues that the Board failed to take into account the fact that Mr.

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

Smith v. Office of Personnel Management, 593 F. App'x 985 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

593 F. App'x 985 (Smith v. Office of Personnel Management) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tirso S. Herrera v. The United States
849 F.2d 1416 (Federal Circuit, 1988)
Ann C. Brown v. Office of Personnel Management
872 F.2d 401 (Federal Circuit, 1989)
Laverne W. Davis v. Office of Personnel Management
938 F.2d 1283 (Federal Circuit, 1991)
David L. Whalen v. Office of Personnel Management
959 F.2d 924 (Federal Circuit, 1992)
Patricia L. Killip v. Office of Personnel Management
991 F.2d 1564 (Federal Circuit, 1993)
Juanita A. Rosete v. Office of Personnel Management
48 F.3d 514 (Federal Circuit, 1995)
Joseph P. Roman v. Central Intelligence Agency
297 F.3d 1363 (Federal Circuit, 2002)
Schumacher v. Aldridge
665 F. Supp. 41 (District of Columbia, 1987)