Ronald Keith Watkins v. Office of Personnel Management

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RONALD KEITH WATKINS,
Petitioner
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent
______________________
2022-2085
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DC-0831-16-0353-I-1.
______________________
Decided: September 14, 2023
______________________
RONALD K EITH WATKINS , Silver Spring, MD, pro se.
D ANIEL H OFFMAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent. Also represented by REGINALD
T HOMAS BLADES , J R., BRIAN M. BOYNTON, P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY .
______________________
Before T ARANTO, STOLL , and CUNNINGHAM , Circuit
Judges.
Case: 22-2085 Document: 46 Page: 1 Filed: 09/14/2023

-- 1 of 10 --

WATKINS v. OPM 2
CUNNINGHAM , Circuit Judge.
Ronald Keith Watkins petitions for review of a Merit
Systems Protection Board (“Board”) decision affirming a fi-
nal decision of the Office of Personnel Management
(“OPM”) finding that Mr. Watkins was ineligible for an im-
mediate retirement annuity under the Civil Service Retire-
ment System. Watkins v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., No. DC-0831-
16-0353-I-1, 2016 WL 3988775 (M.S.P.B. July 20, 2016)
(“Decision”) (App. 1–13).1 We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Mr. Watkins held a series of appointed positions with
the government of the District of Columbia. Decision at 2.
He first began working for the government on November
10, 1981, and resigned on September 16, 1983. See App.
55; Watkins v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., No. DC-0831-16-0353-I-
1 (M.S.P.B.) (“M.S.P.B. Appeal R.”), Tab 18 at 35 (OPM’s
certified Individual Retirement Record for Mr. Watkins).2
Later rejoining the government, Mr. Watkins was ap-
pointed to another position with the government of the Dis-
trict of Columbia on November 11, 1984, where he worked
until his resignation on June 14, 1985. See App. 55;
M.S.P.B. Appeal R., Tab 18 at 34 (Individual Retirement
Record). Mr. Watkins’s third and final position with the
government started on September 2, 1986, and ended on
1 “App.” citations in this opinion refer to the appen-
dix filed by Respondent. Moreover, because the reported
version of the Board’s decision is not paginated, citations
in this opinion are to the version of the Board’s decision
included in the appendix. For example, Decision at 1 is
found at App. 1.
2 Because the parties did not include certain rele-
vant materials from the underlying record in the appellate
record, we have cited to such materials from the underlying
record where appropriate.
Case: 22-2085 Document: 46 Page: 2 Filed: 09/14/2023

-- 2 of 10 --

WATKINS v. OPM 3
February 7, 2003, when he was terminated by the District
of Columbia Department of Corrections. See M.S.P.B. Ap-
peal R., Tab 18 at 31, 33 (Individual Retirement Record);
Decision at 2.
After his termination, Mr. Watkins successfully
brought suit in the Superior Court of the District of Colum-
bia concerning certain protected whistleblower disclosures.
See Decision at 2; App. 38–39. The trial court awarded Mr.
Watkins back pay with interest from the date of his termi-
nation on February 7, 2003, until the date of the trial
court’s hearing on May 5, 2004, and awarded him “front
pay, in lieu of reinstatement, in the amount equivalent to
(18) months salary, with interest . . . from May 5, 2004,”
i.e., front pay until November 6, 2005. See M.S.P.B. Appeal
R., Tab 18 at 18–20; see also Watkins v. District of Colum-
bia, 944 A.2d 1077, 1078–85 & n.2 (D.C. Cir. 2008); App.
55. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the
trial court’s judgment. Watkins, 944 A.2d at 1078–85.
In 2013 and 2014, Mr. Watkins submitted requests for
an immediate retirement annuity under the Comprehen-
sive Merit Personnel Act with the District of Columbia De-
partment of Human Resources and the District of
Columbia Department of Corrections. See App. 34; Deci-
sion at 2. On January 6, 2015, the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia dismissed Mr. Watkins’s action for
lack of jurisdiction. See App. 33–35. Because Mr. Watkins
was first employed by the government of the District of Co-
lumbia prior to October 1, 1987, his request was governed
by the Civil Service Retirement System, not the Compre-
hensive Merit Personnel Act. See App. 34–35. The trial
court instructed Mr. Watkins to “file his request for imme-
diate retirement pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8336 with the Of-
fice of Personnel Management pursuant to that agency’s
regulatory authority.” App. 35. The District of Columbia
Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. See
App. 36–37.
Case: 22-2085 Document: 46 Page: 3 Filed: 09/14/2023

-- 3 of 10 --

WATKINS v. OPM 4
Mr. Watkins submitted an Application for Immediate
Retirement under the Civil Service Retirement System
with OPM on August 20, 2015. See App. 49–53. OPM de-
nied Mr. Watkins’s application and his reconsideration re-
quest. See App. 54–57. OPM explained that agency
records indicated that on the date of his separation from
service on November 6, 2005, Mr. Watkins was forty-eight
years old and accrued twenty-one years, seven months, and
sixteen days of creditable service time, such that he did not
meet the immediate retirement requirements under 5
U.S.C. § 8336. See id.
On February 15, 2016, Mr. Watkins appealed OPM’s
final decision to the Board. See App. 59–92. In an initial
decision, the administrative judge affirmed OPM’s final de-
cision. See Decision at 1–13. The administrative judge
found that OPM correctly determined that Mr. Watkins
was not an “employee” for retirement credit purposes un-
der the requirements of 5 U.S.C. § 2105(a) beyond the No-
vember 6, 2005 separation date listed in his Individual
Retirement Record. See id. at 4–7. The administrative
judge concluded that OPM correctly determined that Mr.
Watkins did not meet the age or creditable service time re-
quirements at the time of his November 6, 2005 separation
date to qualify for immediate retirement under 5 U.S.C.
§ 8336. See id. at 3–7.
Mr. Watkins filed a petition for review of the adminis-
trative judge’s initial decision, which the Board denied. See
App. 14–25. The administrative judge’s initial decision be-
came the Board’s final decision under 5 C.F.R.
§ 1201.113(b). See App. 15. Mr. Watkins now appeals from
the final decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(9).
II. D ISCUSSION
We set aside a Board decision only if it is “(1) arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in ac-
cordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures
Case: 22-2085 Document: 46 Page: 4 Filed: 09/14/2023

-- 4 of 10 --

WATKINS v. OPM 5
required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed;
or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(c); see also Standley v. Dep’t of Energy, 26 F.4th 937,
942 (Fed. Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 2873 (2022).
Substantial evidence “means such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Standley, 26 F.4th at 942 (citation omitted).
Mr. Watkins has the burden of proving that he is entitled
to retirement benefits. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(b)(2)(ii); see
also Cheeseman v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 791 F.2d 138, 141
(Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1037 (1987).
Because Mr. Watkins was first employed by the gov-
ernment of the District of Columbia on November 10, 1981,
App. 55, his request for an immediate retirement annuity
is governed by the Civil Service Retirement System. See 5
U.S.C. § 8331(1)(G) (extending Civil Service Retirement
System coverage to “individual[s] first employed by the
government of the District of Columbia before October 1,
1987”); Muwwakkil v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 18 F.3d 921, 922
& n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (explaining that an “employee of the
government of the District of Columbia” who was employed
prior to October 1, 1987, was “eligible for participation” “in
the federal Civil Service Retirement System.” (citing 5
U.S.C. § 8331(1)(G))).
Section 8336 of Title 5 of the United States Code pro-
vides that an employee is eligible for immediate retirement
if, on the date of his or her separation from service, the em-
ployee is (1) at least fifty-five years old with thirty years of
service, (2) at least sixty years old with twenty years of ser-
vice, or (3) at least fifty years old with twenty years of ser-
vice as a law enforcement officer, firefighter, nuclear
materials courier, or customs and border protection officer,
or any combination of such service totaling at least twenty
Case: 22-2085 Document: 46 Page: 5 Filed: 09/14/2023

-- 5 of 10 --

WATKINS v. OPM 6
years. 5 U.S.C. § 8336(a)–(c)(1);3 see also Nebblett v. Off. of
Pers. Mgmt., 237 F.3d 1353, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001);
Lengerich v. Dep’t of Interior, 454 F.3d 1367, 1367–68 (Fed.
Cir. 2006). In order to be considered an “employee” for civil
service retirement credit purposes, the individual must
have been (1) appointed in the civil service by a federal of-
ficial acting in his or her official capacity; (2) engaged in
the performance of a federal function under authority of
law or an Executive act; and (3) subject to the supervision
of the federal official while engaged in the performance of
the duties of his or her position. See 5 U.S.C. § 2105(a);4
Horner v. Acosta, 803 F.2d 687, 691 (Fed. Cir. 1986). All
three elements must be met. Horner, 803 F.2d at 691.
At issue in this appeal is whether Mr. Watkins was an
“employee” according to 5 U.S.C. § 2105(a) after November
6, 2005—the termination date listed on Mr. Watkins’s In-
dividual Retirement Record and therefore the date that
OPM and the Board used to calculate Mr. Watkins’s age
and creditable service time for immediate retirement un-
der 5 U.S.C. § 8336. See Decision at 3–7; App. 54–57;
M.S.P.B. Appeal R., Tab 18 at 30. On appeal, Mr. Watkins
contends that the termination date on the Individual Re-
tirement Record is incorrect because he was employed after
November 6, 2005, until the present,5 and therefore meets
3 5 U.S.C. § 8336 identifies other combinations of age
and service requirements not relevant to this appeal.
4 The term “employee” for this purpose is defined in
5 U.S.C. § 8331(1)(A) by reference to 5 U.S.C. § 2105.
5 Mr. Watkins argues on appeal that he has been em-
ployed by the government of the District of Columbia from
November 6, 2005 “to this very date,” Pet’r’s Suppl. Open-
ing Br. 8, but argued before OPM and the Board that his
separation date was August 20, 2015. See App. 49, 61. This
difference in dates is insignificant because we find that Mr.
Watkins was not employed beyond November 6, 2005.
Case: 22-2085 Document: 46 Page: 6 Filed: 09/14/2023

-- 6 of 10 --

WATKINS v. OPM 7
the age and creditable service time requirements for imme-
diate retirement under 5 U.S.C. § 8336. See Pet’r’s Suppl.
Opening Br. 3–4, 8–10. In support, Mr. Watkins raises
three main arguments, all of which concern the legal effect
of certain court decisions. We find Mr. Watkins’s argu-
ments unpersuasive and address each in turn.
First, Mr. Watkins contends that the 2015 decisions of
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and the Dis-
trict of Columbia Court of Appeals ordered OPM to grant
Mr. Watkins’s request for immediate retirement, and
OPM—and now the Board—defied the orders. See Pet’r’s
Suppl. Opening Br. 3–4, 6–9; Pet’r’s Reply Br. 1–2, 5–6, 13–
14. We disagree. As the Board correctly found, the 2015
decisions did not contain such an order. See Decision at 4–
5. Rather, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals explained
that Mr. Watkins’s retirement request was governed by the
Civil Service Retirement System, not the Comprehensive
Merit Personnel Act, and simply instructed Mr. Watkins to
instead file his request with OPM, which had the relevant
regulatory authority. See App. 34–35 (Trial court instruct-
ing Mr. Watkins to “file his request for immediate retire-
ment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8336 with the Office of
Personnel Management pursuant to that agency’s regula-
tory authority.”), 36–37 (District of Columbia Court of Ap-
peals explaining that Mr. Watkins “may pursue relief
before the Office of Personnel Management.”). Neither
court assessed the merits of Mr. Watkins’s immediate re-
tirement request under 5 U.S.C. § 8336 because neither
court had jurisdiction to do so. Accordingly, the Board did
not err in finding that the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
“d[id] not direct OPM to provide [Mr. Watkins] with an im-
mediate annuity.” Decision at 5.
Second, Mr. Watkins contends that the decisions ad-
dressing his whistleblower case and awarding him dam-
ages, back pay, and front pay “dictate[d] that [he] was not
Case: 22-2085 Document: 46 Page: 7 Filed: 09/14/2023

-- 7 of 10 --

WATKINS v. OPM 8
terminated” after November 6, 2005, and was instead em-
ployed by the government of the District of Columbia “since
September 2, 1986 [through the present] without separa-
tion.” Pet’r’s Reply Br. 6–8 (emphasis removed); see also
Pet’r’s Suppl. Opening Br. 2–10; Pet’r’s Reply Br. 1–2, 13–
14. Mr. Watkins argues that such decisions are entitled to
preclusive effect. See Pet’r’s Suppl. Opening Br. 4–10.
Contrary to Mr. Watkins’s assertions, the decisions ad-
dressing his whistleblower case did not deem his employ-
ment as continuing beyond November 6, 2005. Indeed, as
the Board correctly determined, these decisions found the
opposite. See Decision at 6. In his whistleblower case, the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia initially ordered
that Mr. Watkins be reinstated to his former position and
be awarded back pay with interest. See M.S.P.B. Appeal
R., Tab 2 at 7–8 (trial court’s January 28, 2004 order).
However, the trial court later specifically rescinded that re-
instatement order and awarded Mr. Watkins “front pay, in
lieu of reinstatement, in the amount equivalent to (18)
months salary, with interest . . . from May 5, 2004,” i.e.,
front pay until November 6, 2005. See M.S.P.B. Appeal R.,
Tab 18 at 19 (trial court’s August 2, 2004 order) (emphasis
added); see also Watkins, 944 A.2d at 1080 & n.2. The trial
court’s judgment was later affirmed by the District of Co-
lumbia Court of Appeals. See Watkins, 944 A.2d at 1080–
85 (emphasis added). These decisions make clear that Mr.
Watkins was not reinstated to his former position with the
District of Columbia Department of Corrections. Rather,
Mr. Watkins was awarded 18 months of front pay, termi-
nating on November 6, 2005. See M.S.P.B. Appeal R., Tab
18 at 30 (Individual Retirement Record listing Mr. Wat-
kins’s termination date as November 6, 2005). We there-
fore agree with the Board’s interpretation of these
decisions.
Third, Mr. Watkins contends that a related decision is-
sued by this court “dictate[d] that [he] was not terminated”
after November 6, 2005, and that this decision is entitled
Case: 22-2085 Document: 46 Page: 8 Filed: 09/14/2023

-- 8 of 10 --

WATKINS v. OPM 9
to preclusive effect. Pet’r’s Reply Br. 8 (emphasis re-
moved); see also Pet’r’s Suppl. Opening Br. 2–10; Pet’r’s Re-
ply Br. 9–14. The related decision, on which Mr. Watkins
relies, concerns the same claim for immediate retirement
at issue in this appeal. See Watkins v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.,
737 Fed. App’x 996, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2018). While Mr. Wat-
kins’s petition for review of the administrative judge’s de-
cision was still pending, OPM issued a second initial
decision denying Mr. Watkins’s same claim for immediate
retirement. Id. However, upon realizing that its decision
was duplicative of its first initial decision, OPM rescinded
its second initial decision. Id. Mr. Watkins nonetheless
appealed from OPM’s second initial decision, but the ad-
ministrative judge dismissed the appeal because the ap-
pealed decision was duplicative and not final. Id. When
Mr. Watkins filed an appeal of the decision with this court,
this court affirmed the Board’s decision. Id. at 996–98. No-
tably, nowhere in this court’s decision does it conclude that
Mr. Watkins was employed beyond November 6, 2005.
Accordingly, Mr. Watkins has failed to show error in
finding that he was terminated by November 6, 2005. See
Decision at 5–7. Substantial evidence supports the finding
that, after November 6, 2005, “[t]here is no evidence in the
record that [Mr. Watkins] engaged in the performance of a
[f]ederal function under authority of law or an executive
act . . . nor is there any evidence to indicate that he was
under the supervision of a named [f]ederal (or DC Govern-
ment) official”—both of which are required to be considered
an “employee” for civil service retirement credit purposes
under 5 U.S.C. § 2105(a). See id. at 5–6; see also Horner,
803 F.2d at 691. Consequently, the Board did not err in
finding that Mr. Watkins failed to perform creditable ser-
vice after November 6, 2005, and therefore did not err in
using this date to calculate Mr. Watkins’s age and credita-
ble service time for immediate retirement under 5 U.S.C.
§ 8336.
Case: 22-2085 Document: 46 Page: 9 Filed: 09/14/2023

-- 9 of 10 --

WATKINS v. OPM 10
OPM found, and the Board agreed, that at the time of
Mr. Watkins’s separation from service on November 6,
2005, Mr. Watkins—born in August 1957—was forty-eight
years old and accrued twenty-one years, seven months, and
sixteen days of creditable service time. See App. 54–57; De-
cision at 2, 7. Accordingly, he did not meet the age and
creditable service time requirements for immediate retire-
ment entitlement under 5 U.S.C. § 8336. Mr. Watkins does
not raise any challenge to this finding other than his failed
challenge concerning the separation date. However, even
if Mr. Watkins did raise such a challenge, we conclude that
the Board did not err in affirming OPM’s decision and that
substantial evidence supports the findings with respect to
Mr. Watkins’s age and creditable service time. See Deci-
sion at 7; App. 54–57. Because Mr. Watkins did not meet
the age or creditable service time requirements on Novem-
ber 6, 2005, we conclude that the Board did not err in find-
ing that Mr. Watkins was not eligible for immediate
retirement under 5 U.S.C. § 8336.
III. CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Watkins’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea-
sons, we affirm the Board’s final decision.
AFFIRMED
Case: 22-2085 Document: 46 Page: 10 Filed: 09/14/2023

-- 10 of 10 --