In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 21-2272 (Filed: November 18, 2022) NOT FOR PUBLICATION ************************************** DANIEL P. MCCARTHY, * * Pro Se; Lack of Subject-Matter Plaintiff, * Jurisdiction; RCFC 12(b)(1); Motion * to Amend; Military Service Deposit; v. * Administrative Procedure Act; * Declaratory Judgment Act; Federal THE UNITED STATES, * Tort Claims Act; Writ of Mandamus; * Due Process. Defendant. * ************************************** Daniel P. McCarthy, Jackson, MI, pro se. Kristin E. Olson, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, counsel for Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER DIETZ, Judge. Daniel P. McCarthy, a pro se plaintiff, challenges certain actions and decisions made by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (“DFAS”) and the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) denying his request to make military service deposits to enhance his civil service retirement annuity payments. The government moves to dismiss Mr. McCarthy’s complaint for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). Because this Court does not have jurisdiction to review a decision by OPM on retirement benefit claims and Mr. McCarthy otherwise fails to identify a money-mandating source of law that provides this Court with jurisdiction over his claims, the Court GRANTS the government’s motion to dismiss. I. BACKGROUND Under the Federal Employee Retirement System (“FERS”), a federal civilian employee who performed military service may be entitled to enhanced civilian annuity payments. See 5 U.S.C. § 8411(c)(1)(B); 5 U.S.C. § 8422(e)(1)(A).1 A federal employee can have their qualifying 1 Mr. McCarthy’s complaint is unclear as to whether he retired under the Civil Service Retirement System (“CSRS”) or the FERS. A determination of whether Mr. McCarthy retired under the CSRS or FERS is not necessary for the Court to rule on the government’s motion to dismiss because OPM has the authority to adjudicate all claims under military service credited toward their years of civil service by paying a deposit into the civilian retirement fund.2 See 5 U.S.C. § 8411(c)(1)(B); Faris v. Dept. of the Air Force, 2022 WL 4376408, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 22, 2022). The military service deposit must be paid in full to the employing agency, which remits the amount to OPM, prior to the federal employee’s retirement from the civil service. 5 U.S.C. § 8422(e)(1)(A); 5 C.F.R. § 842.307(c). An employee who fails to pay the deposit prior to their retirement may still make a lump sum payment if OPM rules that there was an administrative error in processing the employee’s deposit. See 5 C.F.R. § 842.307(a)(3). On June 28, 2011, Mr. McCarthy, while working at USCIS, began the process for making his military service deposit. Compl. [ECF 1] ¶¶ 6, 8. Mr. McCarthy sought to make a deposit for various long-term active-duty service periods and short-term active-duty reserve tours in the United States Army. See id. ¶¶ 9-10; Ex. A [ECF 1-1]. In January 2013, Mr. McCarthy successfully made a deposit and received …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals