UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

LENNIS REYNOLDS,

Appellant,

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

CH-0841-15-0514-I-1

DATE: January 20, 2016

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL*

Lennis Reynolds, Racine, Wisconsin, pro se.

Kristine Prentice, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

BEFORE

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

FINAL ORDER

¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which

dismissed his appeal of a June 22, 2010 reconsideration decision issued by the 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) denying his request for an annuity 

supplement under Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS). Generally, we 

 * A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 

significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 

but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not 

required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a 

precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board 

as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c). 
2

grant petitions such as this one only when: the initial decision contains erroneous 

findings of material fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous 

interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous application of the law to 

the facts of the case; the administrative judge’s rulings during either the course of 

the appeal or the initial decision were not consistent with required procedures or 

involved an abuse of discretion, and the resulting error affected the outcome of 

the case; or new and material evidence or legal argument is available that, despite 

the petitioner’s due diligence, was not available when the record closed. See

title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 (5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.115). After fully considering the filings in this appeal, we conclude that 

the petitioner has not established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting 

the petition for review. Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and 

AFFIRM the initial decision, which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.113(b). 

¶2 On June 22, 2010, OPM issued a final decision finding that the appellant 

was not entitled to an annuity supplement under FERS. Initial Appeal File (IAF),

Tab 7 at 31. The appellant filed an appeal with the Board on July 7, 2010, and 

the administrative judge issued an initial decision on November 5, 2010, 

affirming OPM’s decision. Id. at 6; see Reynolds v. Office of Personnel 

Management, No. CH-0841-10-0788-I-1, Initial Decision (Nov. 5, 2010). After 

the Board issued a final order on May 17, 2011, which denied the appellant’s 

petition for review of the initial decision, he exercised his right to request that the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit review the Board’s decision. IAF, 

Tab 7 at 10-14. The court dismissed the appellant’s petition for review on 

August 25, 2011, for failure to prosecute. Id. at 10.

¶3 On June 10, 2015, the appellant filed a new appeal with the Board seeking 

to again challenge OPM’s June 22, 2010 final decision. IAF, Tab 1. The 

appellant argued that he has “new evidence,” which merely consists of his

disagreement with OPM’s decision and his argument that he is entitled to an 
3

annuity supplement pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8421. Id. at 5-6, 9. The 

administrative judge ordered the appellant to file evidence and argument showing

good cause why his appeal should not be dismissed because it appeared that the 

matter he raised on appeal was previously adjudicated, and therefore barred by 

the doctrine of res judicata. IAF, Tab 3. 

¶4 OPM responded to the order by arguing that “the issue on appeal had 

already been litigated, [and that] further litigation is precluded by the principles 

of res judicata.” IAF, Tab 7 at 4. OPM also submitted documentation proving

that the appellant had already sought review of OPM’s June 22, 2010 final 

decision to the Board and the court without success. Id. at 10-35. The appellant 

offered no argument in opposition to dismissing his appeal as barred by 

res judicata, although he argued that he filed a timely appeal after he obtained 

new evidence. IAF, Tab 5 at 3. 

¶5 The administrative judge issued an initial decision dismissing the appeal as 

barred by the doctrine of res judicata, finding that the appellant received a prior 

decision on the merits of OPM’s reconsideration decision by a forum of 

competent jurisdiction. IAF, Tab 8, Initial Decision (ID) at 3. The appellant 

filed a petition for review arguing the merits of his appeal, and OPM responded in 

opposition to his petition. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tabs 1, 4. 

¶6 Under the doctrine of res judicata, a valid, final judgment on the merits of 

an action bars a second action involving the same parties or their privies based on 

the same cause of action. Peartree v. U.S. Postal Service, 66 M.S.P.R. 332, 337 

(1995). On review, the appellant merely argues the merits of his appeal without 

disputing the administrative judge’s finding that his appeal is barred by the 

doctrine of res judicata. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4-5; ID at 3. We find no reason to 

disturb the administrative judge’s finding that res judicata applies to bar this 

appeal because it is undisputed that: (1) the appellant could have raised the same 

arguments in his last appeal of OPM’s June 22, 2010 final decision; (2) he 

received a prior judgment on the merits of OPM’s final decision by a forum with 
4

competent jurisdiction; and (3) the record reflects that his appeals involved the 

same cause of action and the same parties or their privies. ID at 2; see IAF, 

Tabs 7-8; Peartree, 66 M.S.P.R. at 337. We therefore deny the petition for 

review of the initial decision that dismissed this appeal as barred by the doctrine 

of res judicata. 

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING

YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS

You have the right to request review of this final decision by the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. You must submit your request to the 

court at the following address: 

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

717 Madison Place, N.W.

Washington, DC 20439

The court must receive your request for review no later than 60 calendar days 

after the date of this order. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) (as rev. eff. Dec. 27, 

2012). If you choose to file, be very careful to file on time. The court has held 

that normally it does not have the authority to waive this statutory deadline and 

that filings that do not comply with the deadline must be dismissed. See Pinat v. 

Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991). 

If you need further information about your right to appeal this decision to 

court, you should refer to the Federal law that gives you this right. It is found in 

title 5 of the U.S. Code, section 7703 (5 U.S.C. § 7703) (as rev. eff. Dec. 27, 

2012). You may read this law as well as other sections of the U.S. Code, at our 

website, http://www.mspb.gov/appeals/uscode.htm. Additional information is 

available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular relevance 

is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is contained 

within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, and 11. 
5

If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at 

http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation 

for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The 

Merit Systems Protection Board neither endorses the services provided by any 

attorney nor warrants that any attorney will accept representation in a given case. 

FOR THE BOARD:

Washington, D.C.

______________________________

William D. Spencer

Clerk of the Board