Case: 22-1036 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 06/10/2022
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RICARDO R. CASTILLEJOS,
Petitioner
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent
______________________
2022-1036
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. SF-0831-21-0145-I-1.
______________________
Decided: June 10, 2022
______________________
RICARDO R. CASTILLEJOS, Olongapo City, Philippines,
pro se.
ALISON VICKS, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Di-
vision, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRIAN M.
BOYNTON, LISA LEFANTE DONAHUE, PATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY.
______________________
Before DYK, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
Case: 22-1036 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 06/10/2022
2 CASTILLEJOS v. OPM
PER CURIAM
Ricardo Castillejos appeals from the decision of the
Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”). The Board dis-
missed Mr. Castillejos’s appeal of an Office of Personnel
Management (“OPM”) final decision denying his applica-
tion for a civil service annuity. We reverse and remand.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Castillejos, a citizen of the Philippines, was a fed-
eral employee of the United States Department of the Navy
from October 1974 until September 1986 and again from
April 1987 until August 1992. In 2017, Mr. Castillejos filed
a claim challenging an OPM reconsideration decision deny-
ing his application for a deferred retirement based on his
employment for the period 1974 to 1986 (Castillejos III).
An administrative judge (“AJ”) affirmed the denial in No-
vember 2017. Mr. Castillejos petitioned the Board for re-
view in January 2018. The petition remains pending
before the Board.
In 2020, Mr. Castillejos again applied to OPM for a civil
service annuity, this time additionally based on the period
1987 to 1992, and was denied. He appealed the decision.
An AJ dismissed Mr. Castillejos’s appeal, finding that he
was collaterally estopped by Castillejos III. This became
the final decision of the Board on September 17, 2021,
when Mr. Castillejos did not seek review by the full Board.
Mr. Castillejos petitions this court for review. We have ju-
risdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
DISCUSSION
Whether a particular claim is barred by collateral es-
toppel is a question of law which we review without defer-
ence. Phillips/May Corp. v. United States,
524 F.3d 1264,
1267 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Collateral estoppel “means simply
that when an issue of ultimate fact has once been deter-
mined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot
again be litigated between the same parties in any future
Case: 22-1036 Document: 22 Page: 3 Filed: 06/10/2022
CASTILLEJOS v. OPM 3
lawsuit.” Ashe v. Swenson,
397 U.S. 436, 443 (1970).
Agency decisions may ground collateral estoppel. B&B
Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc.,
575 U.S. 138, 141–
42 (2015).
To determine whether an agency decision satisfies the
finality requirement, “reference must be made to the pro-
cedures of the agency that specify what official has author-
ity to decide and the point at which the decision becomes
effective.” Restatement (Second) of Judgments, § 83 cmt. e
(Am. Law Inst. 1982). 1 An initial decision by an AJ subject
to review by the Board is not a final judgment and cannot
be the basis for collateral estoppel. Zgonc v. Dep’t of Def.,
103 M.S.P.R. 666, 669 (2006) (citing Wade v. Dep’t of the
Air Force,
70 M.S.P.R. 396, 398 (1996), aff’d,
104 F.3d 375
(Fed. Cir. 1996) (Table)). Here, as the government agrees,
the Board erred in dismissing the suit based on collateral
estoppel because Castillejos III, which is still pending re-
view by the full Board, is not a final judgment.
Although we generally review the Board’s decisions on
the grounds “upon which the record discloses that its action
was based,” SEC v. Chenery Corp.,
318 U.S. 80, 87 (1943),
we may, “where appropriate, affirm the Board on grounds
other than those relied upon in rendering its decision,
when upholding the Board’s decision does not depend upon
making a determination of fact not previously made by the
Board,” Killip v. OPM,
991 F.2d 1564, 1568–69 (Fed. Cir.
1993) (citing Chenery,
318 U.S. at 88). The government
urges this court to affirm the dismissal of the case on
grounds of adjudicatory efficiency because “[t]he Board has
1 We have held in the context of administrative pro-
ceedings for challenging the validity of patents that collat-
eral estoppel applies after this court affirms the agency’s
decision or once it is not subject to judicial review. See XY,
LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics,
890 F.3d 1282, 1294 (Fed. Cir.
2018).
Case: 22-1036 Document: 22 Page: 4 Filed: 06/10/2022
4 CASTILLEJOS v. OPM
often ruled that it is appropriate to dismiss a second appeal
on the grounds of adjudicatory efficiency when it raises
claims already decided in an initial decision in an earlier
appeal.” Boyd v. Dep’t of Lab., 561 F. App’x 978, 982 (Fed.
Cir. 2014) (citing Zgonc, 103 M.S.P.R. at 669). See gener-
ally In re Vox Populi Registry Ltd.,
25 F.4th 1348, 1352 n.2
(Fed. Cir. 2022) (doctrine of administrative preclusion may
preclude repetitive applications).
The problem with the government’s argument and the
Board’s apparent conclusion that Mr. Castillejos is filing
“serial applications seeking the same annuity based on the
same period of Federal civilian service,” S.A. 6, is that Mr.
Castillejos raises different claims in this case. Castillejos
III involved only the period of employment between 1974
and 1986. Here, Mr. Castillejos additionally argues for
benefits based on his employment between 1987 and 1992.
Unlike in Boyd, these are facially different claims. Under
these circumstances, we decline to affirm the Board’s dis-
missal on grounds of adjudicatory efficiency.
We reverse and remand for further proceedings con-
sistent with this opinion. This does not preclude the Board
from holding the case on remand until the resolution of
Castillejos III.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
COSTS
Costs against Respondent.
