Reid v. Office of Personnel Management
708 F. App'x 677
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Carmen P. Reid appealed the Merit Systems Protection Board’s final decision denying credit for military service toward the 5‑year FERS eligibility requirement.
- Reid had ~4 years, 7 months of civilian service and ~1 year, 2 months of military service.
- Statutory framework: 5 U.S.C. § 8410 requires “at least 5 years of civilian service creditable under 5 U.S.C. § 8411” to be eligible for a FERS annuity; § 8411 lists certain civilian and certain military service as creditable for other purposes.
- Reid argued she could combine civilian and military service under § 8411 to meet the 5‑year eligibility threshold.
- The Government and the Board interpreted § 8410 to require five years of civilian service specifically, with military service usable only to compute annuity amounts after eligibility is met.
- The Board ruled for the Government; the Federal Circuit affirmed, concluding the plain text and precedent require five years of civilian service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether military service can be combined with civilian service to meet the 5‑year FERS eligibility requirement in 5 U.S.C. § 8410 | Reid: § 8411 allows counting military service with civilian service to reach five years | Gov: § 8410’s phrase “5 years of civilian service” requires five years of civilian service; military service only affects annuity computation | Military service cannot be used to satisfy the five‑year civilian‑service eligibility requirement; affirming Board |
Key Cases Cited
- TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001) (canon against rendering words superfluous guides statutory interpretation)
- Brown v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 872 F.2d 401 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (similar statutory phrasing held military service cannot establish eligibility; usable only for annuity computation)
- Cieslinski v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., [citation="610 F. App'x 979"] (Fed. Cir. 2015) (non‑precedential; discussed but not controlling for the present eligibility question)
- Smith v. Orr, 855 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (authority explaining that nonessential statements in opinions are not controlling precedents)