Decision  Leon v. Watertown Ret. Bd., CR-26-0159

Date:	05/22/2026
Organization:	Division of Administrative Law Appeals
Docket Number:	CR-26-0159

• Petitioner: David Leon
• Respondent: Watertown Retirement Board
• Administrative Magistrate: Karen T. Guthrie

Order of Dismissal

Petitioner, David Leon, appeals the decision of Respondent, Watertown Retirement Board (“Board”), denying his request to purchase creditable service for work he performed as a 03 contract employee for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from 1995-1998.  The Board explained that it denied his application because he was not a public employee when he applied.  Mr. Leon last was an active member of the retirement system on or around December 31, 2009; the Board received his application after that date.

Most of the statute’s purchase-authorizing provisions apply only to “members in service” or “employees.”  See, e.g., G.L. c. 32, § 3(3).  See generally G.L. c. 32 § 3(1)(a)(i) (member in service is “any member who is regularly employed in the performance of his duties”). As the Contributory Retirement Appeal Board has written, “in the usual case, purchases of prior service may only be made at a time when the purchaser is an active member of a retirement system -- i.e., at a time when he is still working for a governmental entity that participates in a retirement system.” Zavaglia v. Gloucester Ret. Bd., CR-09-459, at *1 (Contrib. Ret. App. Bd. Apr. 13, 2015).  The limited instances in which a “member inactive” may purchase prior non-membership service include teachers on authorized leave of absence, certain veterans’ leaves of absence, former judges, and Peace Corps volunteers.  Id, at *1 & n.1.

Here, Mr. Leon was not an active member of a retirement system when the Board received his application, and the limited instances authorizing a purchase by a member inactive are inapplicable here.

Mr. Leon argues for equitable relief, stating he never received notice of the requirements for purchase of prior service.  However, Chapter 32 does not contain a notice provision.  Furthermore, arguments based upon equitable considerations are unavailing, as the Division of Administrative Law Appeals lacks equitable authority.  See Milne v. Barnstable Cty. Ret. Ass’n., CR-12-8 (Div. Admin. Law App. July 24, 2015).

In view of the foregoing, Mr. Leon has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  Pursuant to 801 CMR 1.01(7)(g)(3), this appeal is DISMISSED.

Dated: May 22, 2026                                      

/s/ Karen T. Guthrie
Administrative Magistrate
Division of Administrative Law Appeals
14 Summer Street, 4th floor
Malden, MA 02148
Tel:  [phone]
www.mass.gov/dala