Thomas L. Betts v. Department of the Interior

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2007-3023
THOMAS L. BETTS,
Petitioner,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
Respondent.
W. Craig James, Mauk & Burgoyne, of Boise, Idaho, for petitioner.
Sean B. McNamara, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With him on
the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson,
Director, and Donald E. Kinner, Assistant Director.
Appealed from: United States Merit Systems Protection Board

-- 1 of 4 --

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2007-3023
THOMAS L. BETTS,
Petitioner,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
Respondent.
__________________________
DECIDED: August 8, 2007
__________________________
Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and LINN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Thomas L. Betts (“Betts”) appeals from a decision of the Merit Systems
Protection Board (“Board”) that became final on September 21, 2006 when Betts failed
to file a petition for review with the Board. Betts v. Dep’t of the Interior, No. SE-0831-
04-0161-I-4 (M.S.P.B. Aug. 17, 2006). The Board affirmed a final decision by the
Department of the Interior (“agency”) denying his request for law enforcement officer
(“LEO”) retirement coverage under the Civil Service Retirement System (“CSRS”) and
the Federal Employees Retirement System (“FERS”). Id. Because the Board’s
decision is supported by substantial evidence and otherwise in accordance with law, we
affirm. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c).

-- 2 of 4 --

On appeal, Betts asserts that he was entitled to LEO credit for his service as a
park ranger at Grand Canyon National Park and Rocky Mountain National Park, and for
his service as a supervisory park ranger at Yellowstone National Park. As both parties
agree, the Board misapplied the break-in-service rule by stating that it would not
consider service prior to August 31, 1986. That error is harmless, however, because
Betts’s service at Grand Canyon, Rocky Mountain, and Yellowstone—the only service
that Betts argues qualifies for LEO credit—all occurred after that date and was fully
considered by the Board.
The parties stipulated that Betts’s service after July 15, 1990 qualifies for
secondary LEO coverage as a supervisor. Betts argues that his service after that date
also qualifies for primary LEO coverage. We conclude, however, that substantial
evidence supports the Board’s finding that Betts failed to prove that he performed
qualifying LEO duties in a primary position after that date. Accordingly, the Board
properly regarded Betts’s service after July 15, 1990 as a secondary LEO position.
In order to be entitled to CSRS or FERS coverage for enhanced LEO credit in a
secondary position, an employee must have transferred directly from a primary LEO
position. See 5 C.F.R. §§ 831.904, 842.803. Although Betts argues that evidence
supports that he spent the majority of his time performing primary LEO duties in his
position at Grand Canyon, the position description and the testimony regarding Betts
actual duties demonstrate that Betts’s position did not exist primarily for the purpose of
investigating, apprehending, or detaining criminals or suspects. See Watson v. Dep’t of
the Navy, 262 F.3d 1292, 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The position description and the
testimony regarding Betts’s actual duties at Rocky Mountain likewise fail to demonstrate
2007-3023 2

-- 3 of 4 --

2007-3023 3
that Betts’s position there existed for the purpose of law enforement. We therefore
conclude that substantial evidence suports the Board’s finding that Betts’s service at
Grand Canyon and Rocky Mountain did not qualify as service in a primary LEO position.
Because the service at Grand Canyon and Rocky Mountain does not qualify as
service in a primary LEO position, Betts did not transfer directly from a primary LEO
position, and thus his subsequent service in a secondary LEO position does not entitle
to him to coverage for enhanced LEO credit. Accordingly, because substantial
evidence supports the Board’s findings, we affirm.
COSTS
No costs.

-- 4 of 4 --