Unpublished Dispositionsantiago C. Leones, Petitioner, v. Office of Personnel Management, Respondent, 824 F.2d 979 (Fed. Cir. 1987)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - 824 F.2d 979 (Fed. Cir. 1987) June 8, 1987

Before RICH, Circuit Judge, and NICHOLS and BALDWIN, Senior Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.


DECISION

Santiago C. Leones (Leones) appeals from the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (board), docket No. SE08318610119, denying Leones' application for a civil service retirement annuity. We affirm.

OPINION

Leones claims entitlement to a civil service retirement annuity for service with the Department of the Navy between 1941 and 1949 and by virtue of a disability he contracted during the period of his federal employment. The evidence in this case is uncontested and is contrary to Leones' claim.

The board found that Leones received a refund of his annuity contributions made from October 23, 1941, to July 29, 1945, and as such he is not entitled to an annuity based on that service. 5 U.S.C. § 8342(a). The positions Leones subsequently held were temporary and did not invoke either the duties or benefits of the civil service system. 5 C.F.R. Sec. 831.201(a) (1). The board concluded that Leones was never reemployed in a position within the civil service.

Leones has failed to produce any evidence that he was reemployed in the service or that he contracted a disease while employed by the government. Records show that Leones was subject to a reduction in force after his last temporary position and not transferred, as he asserts. The board examined the relevant records and based its conclusion on evidence clearly established. We conclude that the decision of the board was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, unsupported by substantial evidence, or otherwise not in accordance with law. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c); Hayes v. Department of the Navy, 727 F.2d 1535, 1537 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.