NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CONRADO A. PADUA,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-1080

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-0831-15-0399-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: April 12, 2016

______________________ 

CONRADO A. PADUA, San Antonio, Zambales, Philippines, pro se. 

JANA MOSES, 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; 

PAUL ST. HILLAIRE, Office of the General Counsel, Office 

of Personnel Management, Washington, DC. 

______________________ 
2 PADUA v. OPM

Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and LOURIE, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Conrado Padua appeals the final decision of the Merit 

System Protections Board (“Board”), affirming the dismissal of his claim under the doctrine of res judicata. For the 

reasons discussed below, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

From May 27, 1968, through October 12, 1977, Mr. 

Padua occupied a series of excepted service, not to exceed, 

appointments at the United States Naval Communications Station in San Miguel, Zambales, Philippines. On 

June 6, 1978, Mr. Padua received an excepted service, not 

to exceed, appointment from the United States Navy at 

Subic Bay, Philippines as an electronics technician. Five 

months later, this position was converted to an indefinite 

appointment in the excepted service. Mr. Padua remained in this position until January 17, 1984. None of 

Mr. Padua’s appointments included a retirement plan. 

On May 21, 2008, Mr. Padua submitted a request to 

the Office of Personnel Management to make a deposit 

into the Civil Service Retirement System. Mr. Padua also 

submitted an undated application for a retirement annuity. In his submissions, Mr. Padua explained that he was 

entitled to retirement benefits based on his Federal 

service from 1968 through 1979. 

Finding that Mr. Padua was not in a position covered 

under the Civil Service Retirement System, the Office of 

Personnel Management denied his request. Mr. Padua 

appealed this determination to the Board. In an initial 

decision, the Board affirmed the denial and found that 

Mr. Padua never occupied a position that was covered 

under the Civil Service Retirement System. Consequently, Mr. Padua was not entitled to make a deposit, or to
PADUA v. OPM 3

receive a retirement annuity. In addition, the Board 

noted that 5 C.F.R. § 831.303(a), which provides for a 

reduced annuity in cases where an employee opts not to 

complete a deposit, did not provide an alternate way for 

Mr. Padua to become entitled to an annuity. The initial 

decision became final on April 17, 2013. 

On October 1, 2013, Mr. Padua submitted a new application for a retirement annuity based on his appointment at the United States Naval Communications Station

between 1968 and 1977. In response, the Office of Personnel Management issued an Initial Decision in which it 

found that Mr. Padua had not occupied a position covered 

under the Civil Service Retirement Act and denied Mr. 

Padua’s request. Mr. Padua requested reconsideration of 

the decision. On February 9, 2015, after review, the 

Office of Personnel Management affirmed its previous 

decision. Mr. Padua appealed the final decision to the 

Board. 

On appeal, the Board issued an Order to Show Cause 

in which it instructed Mr. Padua to explain how his 

October 1, 2013, application to the Office of Personnel 

Management presented issues different from the issues in 

his earlier May 21, 2008, application, and why his appeal 

should not be barred under the doctrine of res judicata. 

Mr. Padua responded that the issue in his first submission was whether he was eligible to make a deposit into 

the Civil Service Retirement System in order to receive an 

annuity. Citing 5 C.F.R. § 831.303(a), Mr. Padua explained that the issue in his subsequent submission was 

whether he was eligible for a reduced annuity absent any 

deposit. 

After considering Mr. Padua’s response, the Board determined that his appeal was barred under the doctrine of 

res judicata because the issues on appeal were issues that 

had been, or could have been, considered in his previous 
4 PADUA v. OPM

submissions to the Office of Personnel Management. 

Consequently, the Board dismissed the appeal. 

Mr. Padua petitioned for review of the Board’s decision. After review, the Board affirmed the dismissal. 

This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

Our review of the Board’s decision is limited by statute. 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).

Under the doctrine of res judicata, “[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.” Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. 

Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398 (1981). A party asserting res 

judicata must demonstrate “(1) the prior decision was 

rendered by a forum with competent jurisdiction; (2) the 

prior decision was a final decision on the merits; and (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 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Two causes of 

action are considered the same when they are based on 

the same underlying facts. See Cunningham v. United 

States, 748 F.3d 1172, 1179 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing 

Ammex, Inc. v. United States, 334 F.3d 1052, 1055 (Fed. 

Cir. 2005)). 

Here, there is no dispute that the Board had jurisdiction over Mr. Padua’s original appeal and that the Board 

decided that appeal on the merits. There is also no dispute that Mr. Padua’s original appeal to the Board and 

this case involve the same parties, namely Mr. Padua and 

the Office of Personnel Management. Therefore, Mr. 
PADUA v. OPM 5

Padua’s appeal will be barred under the doctrine of res 

judicata if the current appeal and the original appeal are 

based on the same underlying facts.

Mr. Padua makes two arguments as to why the current appeal is different from the original appeal. Mr. 

Padua asserts that he is now seeking benefits for the 

period of service between 1968 and 1977, as opposed to 

his entire period of service. Mr. Padua also argues that 

the Board never considered Mr. Padua’s eligibility under 

5 C.F.R. § 831.303(a) in the first appeal. 

First, Mr. Padua’s initial submissions to the Office of 

Personnel Management covered the entire period of his 

service between 1968 and 1979. In Mr. Padua’s original 

appeal, the Board determined that he was not eligible for 

a retirement annuity because none of the positions he 

occupied during that time were covered under the Civil 

Service Retirement System. In making this determination, the Board necessarily examined Mr. Padua’s service 

between 1968 and 1977. Thus, the issues before the 

Board in Mr. Padua’s original appeal and the issues in 

this case are based on the same underlying facts. 

Second, contrary to Mr. Padua’s assertion, in its prior 

decision, the Board explicitly discussed his eligibility 

under 5 C.F.R. § 831.303(a). Consequently, the Board 

addressed the same issue now presented in this appeal.

Because the same underlying facts and the same issues were before the Board in Mr. Padua’s first appeal, 

Mr. Padua’s current appeal is based on the same cause of 

action as the first appeal. Therefore, the Board did not 

abuse its discretion or otherwise err in its determination 

that Mr. Padua’s appeal was barred under the doctrine of 

res judicata. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s decision and deny Mr. Padua’s request for remedies. 
6 PADUA v. OPM

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Each party shall bear their own costs.