Samuel T. Dichoso v. Office of Personnel Management

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2007-3055
SAMUEL T. DICHOSO,
Petitioner,
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent.
Samuel T. Dichoso, of Zambales, Philippines, pro se.
Hillary A. Stern, Senior Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With
her on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, and Jeanne E.
Davidson, Director.
Appealed from: United States Merit Systems Protection Board

-- 1 of 4 --

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2007-3055
SAMUEL T. DICHOSO,
Petitioner,
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent.
__________________________
DECIDED: June 5, 2007
__________________________
Before SCHALL, BRYSON, and LINN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Samuel T. Dichoso (“Dichoso”) seeks review of the final decision of the Merit
Systems Protection Board (“Board”), Dichoso v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No.
SF831060409-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Oct. 5, 2006), based on the initial decision of the
administrative judge (“AJ”), Dichoso v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. SF831060409-I-1
(M.S.P.B. May 24, 2006), dismissing his appeal from the Office of Personnel
Management as barred by res judicata. The Board affirmed the AJ’s application of the
doctrine of res judicata to preclude Dichoso from relitigating the denial of his retirement
benefits. Dichoso timely appealed to this court, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). Because the Board's decision is in accordance with law and does
not otherwise contain reversible error, we affirm. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c).

-- 2 of 4 --

Dichoso seeks to relitigate a previous determination that he does not qualify for
Civil Service Retirement System (“CSRS”) benefits based on his service as a federal
employee in the Philippines. Under the doctrine of res judicata, however, “a final
judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties from relitigating issues that
were or could have been raised in that action.” Stearn v. Dep’t of the Navy, 280 F.3d
1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Res judicata applies here because the prior determination
was a final decision on the merits, rendered by a forum with competent jurisdiction,
based on the same cause of action, and involving the same parties. See Carson v.
Dep't of Energy, 398 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
We have reviewed Dichoso’s arguments attempting to distinguish this case from
his prior appeals and find them unpersuasive. Although Dichoso has formulated new
arguments to justify his claim to an annuity, both cases relate to the denial of CSRS
benefits based on his employment by the Department of the Navy from 1966 until 1987.
See Foster v. Hallco, 947 F.2d 469, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (stating that in the context of
res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, “‘claim’ does not mean merely ‘argument’
or ‘assertion.’ ‘Claim’ is used in the sense of the facts giving rise to the suit”). Thus,
Dichoso cannot escape the preclusive effect of res judicata merely because he now
invokes arguments based on section 8337—rather than section 8338—of title 5 of the
United States Code to support his claim for CSRS benefits. Because Dichoso has
previously fully litigated this denial of retirement benefits, Dichoso v. Office of Pers.
Mgmt., 67 M.S.P.R. 93, aff’d, 69 F.3d 553 (Fed. Cir. 1995), the Board properly
dismissed his claims based on res judicata. Accordingly, we affirm its decision.
COSTS
2007-3055 2

-- 3 of 4 --

No costs.
2007-3055 3

-- 4 of 4 --