which required that five years of civilian service be rendered before any employee may be entitled to an annuity. Act of February 28, 1948, ch. 84, § 5, 62 Stat. 48, 50-51 (1948); see also S.Rep. No. 746; 80th Cong., 2d Sess. (1948), reprinted in 1948 U.S.Code Cong.Serv. 1107, 1111 (“section [5] requires that 5 years of civilian service be rendered before any employee may have title to annuity, rather than a combination of civilian and military service”). Villanueva’s contention that his military and civilian service should be combined is thus expressly precluded by the Act. Because Villanueva has alleged only 34 months of civilian service, Villanueva cannot qualify for an annuity under the 1948 Act. See Cheeseman v. Office of Personnel Management, 791 F.2d 138, 140-41 (Fed.Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION Accordingly, Villanueva is not
holding that a plaintiff in an erisa denial of benefits case bears the burden of proving her entitlement to contractual benefits holding that the burden of proving that the employee did not make reasonable efforts is on the defendant holding that the burden of proving lack of negligence is on the owner holding that the board properly placed the burden of proving entitlement to benefits on the applicant recognizing that the party seeking attorney fees bears the burden of proving entitlement to those fees