Full Opinion

Case: 26-1633 Document: 35 Page: 1 Filed: 11/06/2026 NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ THOMAS K. CULLERTON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2026-1633 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:25-cv-02025-AOB, Judge Armando O. Bonilla. ______________________ Decided: November 6, 2026 ______________________ THOMAS KEVIN CULLERTON, St. Augustine, FL, pro se. ALBERT S. IAROSSI, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash- ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, BRETT SHUMATE. ______________________ Before DYK, CHEN, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Case: 26-1633 Document: 35 Page: 2 Filed: 11/06/2026 2 CULLERTON v. US Mr. Thomas Kevin Cullerton filed a complaint at the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) seeking sever- ance pay following his separation from the United States Forest Service (“Forest Service”). The Claims Court dis- missed the complaint because Mr. Cullerton’s eligibility for an immediate retirement annuity disqualified him from re- ceiving severance pay. We affirm. BACKGROUND Mr. Cullerton was an employee of the Forest Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), from 2023 until August 23, 2025. His position prior to ter- mination was Partnership Coordinator. Prior to his Forest Service employment, Mr. Cullerton was an employee of several other federal agencies from 2011 to 2023. On De- cember 1, 2024, Mr. Cullerton applied for disability retire- ment to the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”), citing the effect of injuries sustained during earlier mili- tary service and alleged occupational injuries linked to his Forest Service duties, and averring that he was generally unable to perform daily work duties. The OPM denied dis- ability retirement, concluding that “there is no supporting evidence indicating [Mr. Cullerton’s] conditions are of the severity to render [him] unable from performing the critical elements of [his] position as a Partnership Coordinator.” App’x 22. 1 However, Mr. Cullerton represents that the OPM eventually approved his disability retirement on March 16, 2026. On July 8, 2025, the USDA, based in part on Mr. Cullerton’s disability application statements, informed him that accommodation of his medical conditions was not possible “due to the severity of cognitive deficits.” 1 Citations to “App’x” refer to the Appendix filed by Mr. Cullerton in this appeal. Dkt. No. 7-2. Case: 26-1633 Document: 35 Page: 3 Filed: 11/06/2026 CULLERTON v. US 3 S. App’x 3 (internal quotation and citation omitted). 2 On July 23, 2025, the Forest Service informed Mr. Cullerton that it proposed to remove him for medical inability to per- form, and on August 20, 2025, the proposed removal was sustained as “necessary to promote the efficiency of the Service.” S. App’x 19. He was removed effective Au- gust 23, 2025. The Forest Service advised Mr. Cullerton that “[f]ederal government employees removed from fed- eral service for the efficiency of the service do not receive severance pay.” App’x 92. Mr. Cullerton filed a complaint in the Claims Court, seeking $95,000 in severance pay. 3 The government moved to dismiss the claim under Claims Court Rule 12(b)(6), ar- guing that Mr. Cullerton was legally ineligible for sever- ance pay. The government pointed out that Mr. Cullerton’s age at the time of separation and length of service entitled him to an “Minimum Retirement Age (MRA)+10” annuity under 5 U.S.C. § 8412(g)(1). 4 According to the government, eligibility for an immediate annuity disqualified Mr. Cullerton from receiving severance pay under 5 C.F.R. § 550.704(b)(5). The Claims Court determined that there was no dispute that Mr. Cullerton met the criteria for MRA+10 eligibility, making him ineligible for severance pay under the applicable regulation, and dismissed the claim for failure to state a claim. 2 Citations to “S. App’x” refer to the Supplemental Appendix filed by the government in this appeal. Dkt. No. 14. 3 Mr. Cullerton supplemented his complaint to add additional claims that the Claims Court dismissed as out- side of its Tucker Act jurisdiction. Mr. Cullerton does not challenge those rulings on appeal. 4 Mr. Cullerton’s age and years of service were estab- lished from his complaint and exhibits thereto. Case: 26-1633 Document: 35 Page: 4 Filed: 11/06/2026 4 CULLERTON v. US Mr. Cullerton timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). DISCUSSION We review de novo the Claims Court’s dismissal of a claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. LaBonte v. United States, 43 F.4th 1357, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2022). On a motion to dismiss, a court must ac- cept as true all factual allegations in the complaint. Cam- bridge v. United States, 558 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Mr. Cullerton’s eligibility for severance pay is governed by 5 U.S.C. § 5595(b), which provides in part: Under regulations prescribed by the President or such officer or agency as he may designate, an em- ployee who— (1) has been employed currently for a con- tinuous period of at least 12 months; and (2) is involuntarily separated from the ser- vice, not by removal for cause on charges of misconduct, delinquency, or inefficiency; is entitled to be paid severance pay in regular pay periods by the agency from which separated. 5 U.S.C. § 5595(b). However, the statute also provides that the definition of a severance-eligible employee excludes someone subject to any “retirement system applicable to an employee . . . who, at the time of separation from the service, has fulfilled the requirements for immediate annuity under such a . . . system.” 5 U.S.C. § 5595(a)(2)(iv) (emphasis added). Con- sistent with § 5595(a)(2)(iv), the applicable regulation pro- vides that “[a]n employee is not eligible for severance pay if he or she . . . [i]s eligible upon separation for an immedi- ate annuity from a Federal civilian retirement system or Case: 26-1633 Document: 35 Page: 5 Filed: 11/06/2026 CULLERTON v. US 5 from the uniformed services.” 5 C.F.R. § 550.704(b), (b)(5). An “immediate annuity” includes a “recurring benefit pay- able under a retirement system applicable to Federal civil- ian employees or members of the uniformed services that the individual is eligible to receive . . . at the time of the involuntary separation from civilian service or that begins to accrue within 1 month after such separation, excluding any Social Security retirement benefit.” 5 C.F.R. § 550.703. Thus, we must determine whether the Claims Court correctly determined Mr. Cullerton was eligible for such an annuity, here, the MRA+10 annuity. “An employee . . . who is separated from the service after attaining the appli- cable minimum retirement age under [5 U.S.C. § 8412(h)] and completing 10 years of service is entitled to an annu- ity.” 5 U.S.C. § 8412(g)(1). The minimum retirement age for Mr. Cullerton, born in 1966, is 56 years and 4 months. 5 Mr. Cullerton was thus eligible for the MRA+10 annuity at separation because he was 58 years old when separated, meeting the age requirement, and had 14 years of service, meeting the years-of-service requirement. Mr. Cullerton argues that he was not eligible to receive the MRA+10 annuity because he never applied for or re- ceived it, electing to pursue disability retirement benefits 5 For an individual born in 1966, § 8412(h)(1)(D) pro- vides a minimum retirement age of “56 years of age plus the number of months in the age increase factor deter- mined under paragraph (2)(B).” Section 8412(h)(2)(B) pro- vides that “the age increase factor shall be equal to two- twelfths times the number of months in the period begin- ning with January 1965 and ending with December of the year in which the date of birth occurs.” The age increase factor for Mr. Cullerton is thus two-twelfths times 24 months, which equals four months to be added to the 56 years under paragraph (h)(1)(D). Case: 26-1633 Document: 35 Page: 6 Filed: 11/06/2026 6 CULLERTON v. US instead. But Mr. Cullerton’s failure to seek such benefits does not alter his immediate eligibility for the MRA+10 an- nuity. Mr. Cullerton also argues that he was not eligible for the MRA+10 annuity because the USDA failed to forward his records to the OPM. This does not affect whether Mr. Cullerton was eligible for benefits. Mr. Cullerton’s immediate eligibility for an MRA+10 annuity disqualified him from receiving severance pay as a matter of law. The Claims Court did not err in dismissing Mr. Cullerton’s claim for severance pay. We have considered Mr. Cullerton’s other arguments and find them unpersuasive. AFFIRMED COSTS No costs.