Manuel Caneda v. Office of Personnel Management

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MANUEL CANEDA,
Petitioner
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent
______________________
2025-1329
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. SF-0831-22-0528-I-1.
______________________
Decided: March 4, 2026
______________________
M ANUEL C ANEDA , San Narciso, Zambales, Philippines,
pro se.
NATALEE A. A LLENBAUGH , Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by
PATRICIA M. M CCARTHY, CORINNE ANNE NIOSI, BRETT
SHUMATE .
______________________
Case: 25-1329 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 03/04/2026

-- 1 of 7 --

CANEDA v. OPM 2
Before LOURIE and P ROST, Circuit Judges, and
BURROUGHS , District Judge.1
PER C URIAM.
Manuel Caneda petitions for review of a final decision
of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“the Board”). The
Board affirmed a decision of the Office of Personnel
Management (“OPM”) that denied Caneda’s application for
deferred retirement benefits from the Civil Service
Retirement System (“CSRS”) and his request to make a
deposit into the Civil Service Retirement Fund (“CSRF”) to
obtain credit for non-covered service. S.A.2 9–15
(“Decision”).3 We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Caneda served in an excepted service position with the
Department of Navy in the Philippines from Novem-
ber 1965 through May 1992. Decision, S.A. 11 (citing
S.A. 65). In 2015, Caneda sent OPM a letter requesting
that it provide him with a form to apply for a CSRS retire-
ment annuity. S.A. 62 (Caneda’s letter). Together with the
letter, Caneda provided various personnel records. S.A. 65
(Caneda’s SF-50, i.e., the government’s official personnel
action form); S.A. 66 (Caneda’s employment records). In its
initial decision, in May 2015, OPM informed Caneda that
he was not eligible for a deferred CSRS annuity because he
had not shown that he had met the requirements for re-
ceiving such benefits. Decision, S.A. 10 (citing S.A. 60).
Years later, in February 2020, OPM issued a final decision
1 Honorable Allison D. Burroughs, District Judge,
United States District Court for the District of Massachu-
setts, sitting by designation.
2 S.A. refers to the Supplemental Appendix submit-
ted with the Appellee’s brief.
3 This is the Board’s Initial Decision, which it
adopted as its Final Decision. See S.A. 2.
Case: 25-1329 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 03/04/2026

-- 2 of 7 --

CANEDA v. OPM 3
denying Caneda’s request for CSRS benefits. Id. at 11 (cit-
ing S.A. 58–59). Caneda then petitioned for Board review.
S.A. 26.
In November 2022, the Administrative Judge issued an
initial decision, later adopted as the Board’s final decision,
affirming OPM’s denial of benefits. Decision, S.A. 9–15.
The Board determined that Caneda had “failed to submit
any evidence” showing entitlement to CSRS benefits. Id.
at 13. The Board explained that while Caneda performed
civilian service for the United States government, the rec-
ord indicated that he never served in a “covered” position,
i.e., one subject to the CSRS. Id. at 14. It further explained
that, without any covered service, Caneda was also ineligi-
ble to submit a deposit to the CSRF for that service—be-
cause deposits are permitted only to remedy missed
deductions for already covered service so that it may be
credited toward a CSRS annuity. Id. at 14–15. It also
noted that Caneda had accrued retirement pay under the
Filipino Employment Personnel Instructions (“FEPI”) re-
tirement system, which reinforced the conclusion that his
service was not covered under CSRS. Id. at 14. The Board
therefore concluded that “[i]n the absence of any evidence
indicating any federal service covered under the CSRS sys-
tem, [Caneda] is not eligible for CSRS benefits, or to make
a deposit to obtain credit for non-covered service,” and af-
firmed OPM’s denial of CSRS retirement benefits. Id.
at 14–15.
Caneda timely petitioned for review. We have jurisdic-
tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9) and 5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1).4
4 The Government argues that Caneda’s petition is
untimely and that § 7703(b)(1)(A) is not subject to equita-
ble tolling. See Gov.’s Inf. Br. 6–7 (citing Oja v. Dep’t of the
Army, 405 F.3d 1349, 1357–60 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). The
Case: 25-1329 Document: 24 Page: 3 Filed: 03/04/2026

-- 3 of 7 --

CANEDA v. OPM 4
D ISCUSSION
Caneda appears to challenge the Board’s finding that
he presented no evidence of any covered service under
5 U.S.C. § 8333(a)-(b) and therefore was not entitled to
make deposits under 5 U.S.C. § 8334(c). See Caneda’s Inf.
Br. 2–9.
The scope of our review of final Board decisions is nar-
rowly defined and limited by statute. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c);
see also O’Neill v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 76 F.3d 363, 364
(Fed. Cir. 1996). We must affirm the Board’s decision un-
less it is “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,
or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained with-
out procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having
been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.”
5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). “We review the Board’s legal decisions
de novo and its findings of fact for substantial evidence.”
McIntosh v. Dep’t of Def., 53 F.4th 630, 638 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a rea-
sonable mind might accept as adequate to support a con-
clusion.” Higgins v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 955 F.3d 1347,
1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citation modified).
Under 5 U.S.C. § 8333(a)-(b), “to qualify for a CSRS re-
tirement annuity, an employee must have performed at
least five years of creditable civilian service, and must have
served at least one of his last two years of federal service
in a covered position—i.e., service that is subject to the
Supreme Court has explained that “§ 7703(b)(1)’s deadline
is non-jurisdictional,” and that “nonjurisdictional [timing
rules] are presumptively subject to equitable tolling,” Har-
row v. Dep’t of Def., 601 U.S. 480, 489 (2024) (alteration in
original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Because the outcome of this case does not turn on the avail-
ability of equitable tolling in § 7703(b)(1) cases generally,
we express no opinion on that question here.
Case: 25-1329 Document: 24 Page: 4 Filed: 03/04/2026

-- 4 of 7 --

CANEDA v. OPM 5
Civil Service Retirement Act.” Lledo v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt.,
886 F.3d 1211, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citations omitted).
Notably, “[w]hile nearly all federal service is creditable ser-
vice, covered service is a narrower subset of federal ser-
vice.” Id. Specifically, where an employee is shown to have
creditable service, but no evidence of covered service, he is
not entitled to CSRS benefits as a matter of law. Id.
at 1213–14 (affirming that the conclusion that an em-
ployee’s creditable, non-covered service “is not entitled to
CSRS benefits is in accordance with law” (citing Quiocson
v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 490 F.3d 1358, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(same))).
As the Board identified, none of Caneda’s service met
the requirement of “covered service” needed to receive
CSRS benefits. Decision, S.A. 13–14. Caneda’s SF-50 per-
sonnel file indicates that his position was not subject to
CSRS and that no CSRS retirement contributions were
withheld from his pay. See S.A. 65. In fact, the file shows
that Caneda was covered by a different retirement system,
the FEPI. Id. His receipt of benefits under a non-CSRS
plan reinforces the conclusion that his service is not cov-
ered under the CSRS. See Quiocson, 490 F.3d at 1360 (“Mr.
Quiocson was covered by a different retirement system, the
FEPI. His receipt of benefits under a non-CSRS plan indi-
cates that his service was not covered under the CSRS.”
(citing 5 U.S.C. § 8331(1)(ii))). Thus, Caneda’s position
with the Navy does not qualify as CSRS “covered” service.
Caneda also appears to argue that 5 C.F.R.
§ 831.303(a), which is a regulation implementing the non-
deduction service deposit provisions under 5 U.S.C.
§ 8334(c), renders his period of federal service prior to Oc-
tober 1982 covered service. Caneda’s Inf. Br. 4–9. It does
not. That regulation merely “allows those already covered
by the Act to include certain creditable service in calculat-
ing the annuity.” Lledo, 886 F.3d at 1214 (citation modi-
fied). It “does not alter the definition of covered service, or
convert creditable service into covered service.” Id.
Case: 25-1329 Document: 24 Page: 5 Filed: 03/04/2026

-- 5 of 7 --

CANEDA v. OPM 6
(citations omitted). In other words, 5 C.F.R. § 831.303(a)
does not circumvent the covered service requirement of the
CSRA. See Dela Rosa v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 583 F.3d 762,
765 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[T]he class of person permitted to
make a deposit pursuant to·§ 8334(c)” includes only those
“former employees” who are “already covered by the
CSRS.” (internal quotations omitted)).
Here, because Caneda left the Navy on May 8, 1992,
see S.A. 65, he had to show that he served in a “covered”
position sometime between May 8, 1990 and May 8, 1992
in order to qualify for CSRS benefits and the related de-
posit provisions, and he did not. See 5 U.S.C. § 8333(a)-(b).
Moreover, the status of Caneda’s pre-1982 service is irrele-
vant for determining entitlement to CSRS benefits. See
Lledo, 886 F.3d at 1214 (explaining that the relevant time
period under 5 U.S.C. § 8333(a)-(b) is the last two years of
employment). Thus, because Caneda never had any CSRS
annuity rights, as a non-covered employee, he cannot re-
tain such rights by making post-employment deposits. See
Dela Rosa, 583 F.3d at 765.
In sum, substantial evidence supports the Board’s find-
ings that none of Caneda’s service was CSRS-covered ser-
vice, and because covered service is a statutory
prerequisite to both an annuity and any deposit under
§ 8334(c), he is not entitled to benefits under the CSRS as
a matter of law. See Lledo, 886 F.3d at 1213 (“Because sub-
stantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that Mr.
Lledo’s service was excluded from [the Civil Service Retire-
ment and Disability Fund] coverage, the decision that Mr.
Lledo is not entitled to CSRS benefits is in accordance with
law.”).
CONCLUSION
We have considered Caneda’s remaining arguments
but find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
affirm.
Case: 25-1329 Document: 24 Page: 6 Filed: 03/04/2026

-- 6 of 7 --

CANEDA v. OPM 7
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1329 Document: 24 Page: 7 Filed: 03/04/2026

-- 7 of 7 --