Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03146/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03146-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose A. Campos
Petitioner
Office of Personnel Management
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JOSE A. CAMPOS,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3146

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-831E-14-0903-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: February 8, 2016

______________________ 

 JOSE A. CAMPOS, Bethania, Panama, pro se. 

 SOSUN BAE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BENJAMIN C.

MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., DEBORAH A. BYNUM. 

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, WALLACH, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Case: 15-3146 Document: 45-2 Page: 1 Filed: 02/08/2016
2 CAMPOS v. OPM

Jose A. Campos appeals a final decision of the Merit 

Systems Protection Board (“Board”). Because the Board 

properly denied Mr. Campos’s petition under the doctrine 

of res judicata, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Campos served with the Department of the Army 

in the Panama Canal Zone from 1973 until 1999. Mr. 

Campos worked as an Engineering Draftsman, and his 

performance was “exceptional.” Pet’r App. 20. His Deputy Commander praised Mr. Campos’s contributions by 

stating that “[h]is dedicated service and performance 

rendered has brought credit to himself, the United States 

Army, and the United States Government.” Id. Mr. 

Campos’s employment ended in 1999 when his organization was closed as a result of the implementation of the 

1977 Panama Canal Zone Treaty. 

In 2005, Mr. Campos applied for a retirement annuity. The Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) denied 

his application in 2006. OPM determined that he did not 

meet the age and service requirements for a civil service 

annuity. OPM explained that his employment did not 

meet the statutory requirement for “continuous service” 

because of a break in his employment between March 20, 

1981 and December 6, 1982.

Mr. Campos appealed OPM’s denial of his claim to the 

Board. In 2007, an administrative judge (“A.J.”) affirmed 

OPM’s decision. The A.J. found the same gap in employment that OPM had earlier identified and thus affirmed 

the denial of Mr. Campos’s claim. In 2009, Mr. Campos 

filed a petition for review, which the Board denied. In 

2011, Mr. Campos filed a new petition for enforcement 

with the Board seeking to once again challenge the 2006 

OPM denial. An A.J. denied this petition on several 

grounds, including res judicata. Mr. Campos filed another petition for review, which the Board also denied.

Case: 15-3146 Document: 45-2 Page: 2 Filed: 02/08/2016
CAMPOS v. OPM 3

In 2014, Mr. Campos brought a third action before the 

Board, again challenging the 2006 OPM decision denying 

his claim to a retirement annuity. In this filing, 

Mr. Campos submitted new evidence to support his argument that he had worked continuously for the United 

States Government through the “gap” in his employment 

history from 1981 to 1982, including three affidavits from 

former colleagues and supporting documentary evidence. 

Pet’r App. 2–13. An A.J. nevertheless denied Mr. Campos’s claim, finding that his newly filed suit was merely 

an attempt to relitigate a claim that was originally made 

final in 2009. The A.J. explained that Mr. Campos’s claim 

was barred by res judicata because the very same claim 

was resolved in a final decision on the merits that involved the same issues and parties as the current appeal. 

Mr. Campos petitioned for Board review of that decision, 

and the Board affirmed, finding his claim barred under

the doctrine of res judicata. 

Mr. Campos appeals the Board’s final decision. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

DISCUSSION

We must affirm the Board’s decision unless it is 

“(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without 

procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having 

been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). We review the Board’s legal 

conclusion on res judicata de novo. Phillips/May Corp. v. 

United States, 524 F.3d 1264, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

We agree with the Board that Mr. Campos’s 2014 

claim is barred by res judicata. “Under the doctrine of res 

judicata (or claim preclusion), ‘[a] final judgment on the 

merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies 

from relitigating issues that were or could have been 

raised in that action.’” Ammex, Inc. v. United States, 334 

F.3d 1052, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting Federated Dep’t 

Case: 15-3146 Document: 45-2 Page: 3 Filed: 02/08/2016
4 CAMPOS v. OPM

Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398 (1981)). In 2009, 

the Board reviewed OPM’s 2006 denial of Mr. Campos’s

application for a retirement annuity and issued a final 

decision on the merits. And that suit involved the same 

parties and issues as the one before us today. Thus, res 

judicata bars this suit. See Carson v. Dep’t of Energy, 398 

F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

While we appreciate that Mr. Campos has set forth 

new evidence to support his claim for a retirement annuity, res judicata nevertheless bars relitigation of his claim. 

Res judicata “rests upon considerations of economy of 

judicial time and public policy favoring the establishment 

of certainty in legal relations.” Comm’r of Internal Revenue v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 597 (1948). So even though, 

in a later suit, a party might present the court with new 

evidence that calls into question the original judgment, 

res judicata does not permit the court to reopen that 

judgment. E.g. 18 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. 

Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4403 (2d ed.

2002) (“[C]ourts have repeatedly recognized that res 

judicata is not defeated by error in the initial judgment . . 

. . [T]his rule ordinarily applies despite the availability of 

new evidence . . . .”). Because the Board correctly found 

that Mr. Campos already brought this claim and litigated 

it to a final decision, we discern no error in the Board’s 

denial of Mr. Campos’s petition under the doctrine of res 

judicata. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we affirm.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 15-3146 Document: 45-2 Page: 4 Filed: 02/08/2016