Washington DC
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Compensation Claim Decision
Under section 3702 of title 31, United States Code
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
New Haven, Connecticut
Ana A. Mazzi
Principal Deputy Associate Director
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance
11/13/2024
Date
The claimant seeks severance pay in connection with the abolishment of his position with the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services Office, United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, in New Haven, Connecticut. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) received the claim on April 25, 2024, and information from his former agency at our request on June 21, 2024. For reasons discussed herein, the claim is denied.
The claimant received a January 22, 2021, letter from the Chief United States Probation Officer for the United States District Court, District of Connecticut, notifying him that due to the abolishment of his position, he would be “involuntarily separated from [his] position of Assistant Systems Manager effective February 12, 2021.” He was placed on administrative leave until his February 2021 separation date. The agency provided the claimant’s Request for Personnel Action (AO 52), effective February 12, 2021, coding the nature of his separation as “Retirement-Voluntary” under the legal authority of chapter 84 (Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS)) of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.). The employing agency denied his subsequent request for severance pay in its April 18, 2024, letter from the Human Resources Manager for the United States District Court, District of Connecticut, stating “…per policy, when a position is abolished, and an employee is eligible for full retirement, they are not eligible to collect severance.”
The claimant’s situation is governed by section 5595(a)(2)(B)(iv) of 5 U.S.C. and its implementing regulations in section 550.704(b)(5) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Specifically, 5 CFR 550.704(b)(5) states in relevant part that an employee is not eligible for severance pay if he or she:
Is eligible upon separation for an immediate annuity from a Federal civilian retirement system or from the uniformed services.
Concurrent receipt of a retirement annuity and severance pay are thus incompatible. When the claimant separated from employment, the AO 52 identifies the action as “Retirement-Voluntary” under FERS. The claimant does not dispute the facts presented by the agency. The statute and implementing regulations specifically exclude from their coverage an employee who is eligible upon separation for an immediate annuity from a retirement system. Therefore, the claimant was not eligible to receive severance pay as an alternative to his retirement from Federal service.
In addition, the claimant provides no explanation for his disagreement with the agency’s reason for denying his severance pay request. However, he states in his request to OPM that his agency planned to separate him from his position “back in 2011 or so,” but at that time agency officials provided him with a “print out of how much severance pay [he] would get.” He provides no further description, but he seemingly suggests his agency is obligated to pay him the severance pay stipulated to him in 2011. The authority in 31 U.S.C. 3702(a)(2) is narrow and limited to determining if monies are owed the claimant under the controlling statutes or regulations at the time of the occurrence of his claim. That the agency gave him a severance payment worksheet in 2011 is thus immaterial for purposes of our claim determination. Nonetheless, we note that to qualify for an immediate annuity under FERS, an employee must meet a combination of age and years of service requirements, e.g., age 62 with five years of service, age 60 with 20 years of service, minimum retirement age (MRA) with 30 years of service, or MRA with 10 years of service (but with reduced benefits). Because the AO 52 on record identifies the claimant’s service computation date as “08-12-2002,” we conclude he would have completed approximately nine years of service as of 2011. Thus, the agency’s computation of severance pay at that time was appropriate. In 2021, however, the claimant clearly qualified for an immediate annuity under FERS and was no longer eligible for severance pay.
Under 5 CFR 178.105, the burden is upon the claimant to establish the liability of the United States and his right to payment. OPM does not conduct adversary hearings but settles claims on the basis of the evidence submitted by the claimant and the written record submitted by the Government agency involved in the claim. Because the record shows his eligibility for an immediate retirement annuity precluded receipt of severance pay, the claimant has failed to demonstrate an entitlement to severance pay. Accordingly, the claim is denied.
This settlement is final. No further administrative review is available within OPM. Nothing in this settlement limits the claimant’s right to bring an action in an appropriate United States court.