(a) Except as provided in §§ 843.208 and 843.209 or in section 3716 of title 31, United States Code, on administrative offset for Government claims, a separated employee who has been separated from a covered position for at least 31 days and who is ineligible for an annuity commencing within 31 days after the date of filing an application for refund is eligible for a payment of the unexpended balance.
(b)(1) For a retirement based on a separation before October 28, 2009, periods of service for which employee contributions have been refunded are not creditable service in determining whether the employee has sufficient service to have title to an annuity or for any other purpose.
(2) For a retirement based on a separation on or after October 28, 2009, periods of service for which employee contributions have been refunded are—
(i) Creditable service in determining whether the employee has sufficient service to have title to an annuity; and
(ii) Not creditable without deposit for any other purpose, except for average pay computation purposes.
[52 FR 2074, Jan. 16, 1987, as amended at 79 FR 46632, Aug. 8, 2014]
Notes of Decisions
Edward Simpkins v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2024).
· cites it 4× “” 5 C.F.R. § 843.202 (b). The appellant filed an application for a refund of retirement deductions for, as relevant here, his service with the U.”
Anthony Bennett v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2025).
· cites it 3× “5 C.F.R. § 843.202 (b)(1). However, OPM does not explain the basis for limiting the service credit to individuals who were separated from Federal employment on or after October 28, 2009, either in its regulation or in its Benefits Administration Letter.”
Richard Talamante v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2024).
“648 , 651 (1992); 5 C.F.R. §843.202 (b). When, as here, the appellant denies receipt of a refund of retirement deductions, he bears the burden of proving such nonreceipt by preponderant evidence.”
Morrison v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 545 F. App'x 977 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
“at 3 (quoting 5 C.F.R. § 843.202 (b) (2008)). Additionally, the AJ concluded that she had not established that any of the exceptions to that rule applied — specifically stating that she was not mentally incompetent at the time she applied for the refund, that the refund was…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.