NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-3090

HORACE M. CHAMBERS, Petitioner,

v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

Horace M. Chambers, of Marysville, California, pro se. John S. Groat , Attorney, Commercial Litigation Br anch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for re spondent. With him on the brief were Peter D. Keisler , Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson , Director, and Franklin W. White, Jr. , Assistant Director. Appealed from: United States Merit Systems Protection BoardNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-3090 HORACE M. CHAMBERS, Petitioner,

v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

__________________ _________ DECIDED: June 7, 2007

__________________ _________ Before BRYSON, LINN, and PROST, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. DECISION Petitioner Horace Chambers appeals from a final decision of the Merit System Protection Board, Docket No. SF-0831-06-0848- I-1, dismissing his challenge to the apportionment of his retirement annuity. Be cause the Board properly concluded that Mr. Chambers’s claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, we affirm

. BACKGROUND The source of Mr. Chambers’s complaint is an order by the Superior Court of California issued in connection with his divo rce from Patricia Chambers. The court awarded Ms. Chambers 24 percent of Mr. C hambers’s gross monthly annuity under the2007-3090 2 Federal Civil Service Retirement Syst em, and directed the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) to pay that portion of the annuity direct ly to Ms. Chambers. OPM found that the order was acceptable fo r processing, and it began sending Ms. Chambers a 24 percent share of his annuity payments. Mr. Chambers sought reconsideration of OPM’s initial decision, alleging that the formula used by the state court to co mpute Ms. Chambers’s apportionment was erroneous. In response, OPM ruled that t he court order complied with the relevant federal statutes and r egulations, and it affirmed its earlie r decision. Mr. Chambers then appealed OPM’s final decision to the Board. The Board considered Mr. Chambers’s arguments that the state cour t order was incorrect and concluded that the order was proper and acceptable for processing by OPM. Chambers v. Office of Personnel Management , MSPB Docket No. SF-0831-05-0365-B-1 (A pr. 21, 2006). That initial decision became the Board’s final decis ion when the Board deni ed Mr. Chambers’s petition for review. Mr. Chambers next attempted to challenge OPM’s apportionment of his annuity by filing a petition for enforce ment with the Board. Howeve r, a petition for enforcement is appropriate only when an agency is not comply ing with a Board order. In this case, OPM’s apportionment decision was in complianc e with the Board’s order. Because Mr. Chambers was challenging acti ons that were in compli ance with a Board order, the Board docketed the petition fo r enforcement as a new appeal. OPM then filed a motion to dismiss t he new appeal under the doctrine of res judicata. “[R]es judicata applies if (1) t he prior decision was rendered by a forum with competent jurisdiction; (2) the prior decisio n was a final decision on the merits; and (3)2007-3090 3 the same cause of action and the same parties or their privies were involved in both cases.” Carson v. Dep’t of Energy , 398 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The Board ruled that the three criteria were met, and it dismissed the action. DISCUSSION Mr. Chambers appeals the Board’s most rec ent decision to this court. We agree with the Board that Mr. Chambers’s appeal is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. First, the Board properly exercised jurisdicti on over Mr. Chambers’s earlier challenge. Second, that decision was final and on the meri ts. And third, Mr. Chambers’s claim in this appeal—that OPM improperly accept ed the state court’s apportionment calculation—is the same cl aim he brought against OPM in the earlier action. Accordingly, the Board correctly dismi ssed the appeal based on its prior decision addressing the same issue.