Babcock v. Kijakazi

Civil-service pensions provided for work as a dual-status military technician do not qualify for exclusion from Social Security benefit calculations under 42 USC § 415(a)(7)(A)(III).

Petitioner, a former “dual-status military technician,” sought to have his pension for that work excluded from Social Security benefit calculation under 42 USC § 415(a)(7)(A)(III). Petitioner argued that because he performed his work for the National Guard, had to wear a National Guard uniform while working, and was required to maintain National Guard membership, his pension from working as a dual-status military technician qualified as payments “based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service.” Petitioner filed suit in federal court, where the District Court upheld the Respondent’s decision to include Petitioner’s civil-service pension in the benefit reduction calculation. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States also affirmed, holding that employment as a dual-status military technician is not “service as a member of a uniformed service” under 42 USC § 415(a)(7)(A)(III). The Court reasoned that Congress’s express statements in various statutes that dual-status military technicians are civilian employees, the fact that such employees receive a civilian civil-service pension under Title 5 of the U.S. Code, the fact that such employees are exempt from the Uniform Code of Military Justice and have access to civilian remedies for workplace issues, clearly show Congressional intent that work as a dual-status military technician not be regarded as “service as a member of a uniformed service.” The court found that because “Congress classified dual-service technicians as ‘civilian,’” the Respondent correctly included Petitioner’s civil-service pension payments in its benefit calculation. AFFIRMED.