Unpublished Dispositionsofronio Y. Libarios, Petitioner, v. Office of Personnel Management, Respondent, 826 F.2d 1072 (Fed. Cir. 1987)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - 826 F.2d 1072 (Fed. Cir. 1987) July 13, 1987

Before DAVIS, Circuit Judge, and BENNETT and MILLER, Senior Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.


DECISION

The decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, No. SE08318610263, September 19, 1986, affirming the denial of civil service retirement benefits on the ground that petitioner had not accumulated five years of creditable service under the Civil Service Retirement Act (CSRA), is affirmed.

OPINION

To be eligible for CSRA benefits, one must have accumulated at least five years of creditable service. 5 U.S.C. § 8333(a) (1982); see also 5 U.S.C. § 8332. The burden of establishing eligibility rests with the applicant, and failure to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of evidence will result in a denial of benefits. Husky v. Office of Personnel Management, 27 M.S.P.R. 363, 365 (1985).

We are satisfied that there is no reversible error in the board's determination that petitioner failed to meet this burden. To establish eligibility, petitioner relies on services rendered to the Municipal Government of Hinunangan, Southern Leyte, and on services to the Philippine Islands Insular Government performed after the Philippines became a separate commonwealth on November 15, 1935. However, such services do not qualify as creditable service under the CSRA. Assuming, arguendo, that petitioner's work in a war-time guerilla unit was performed with a unit recognized by the United States (a fact that petitioner failed to establish), and adding this time to that spent as a civilian employee of the Department of the Army from December 28, 1944 to March 31, 1947, petitioner's total creditable service does not meet the five-year minimum established by Congress. Thus, if petitioner is to receive benefits for time spent in service to the United States, his remedy is with Congress, not this court. The decision of the board is affirmed.

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.