Docket No. AO 23-639

INITIAL DECISION

Respondent, United States Postal Service, sought to collect from Petitioner, Alberto Panzardi, a debt in the amount of $3,169.35 (Invoice No. 703477048) to recover its payment of leave after Petitioner's separation date. As the underlying facts in this case were not in dispute, the case was appropriate for review upon the submitted record.
This case turns on the interpretation of a Settlement Agreement between the parties in a concurrent and related Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or the Board) proceeding. Alberto Panzardi v. United States Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. DE-0752-22-0299-C-l. This case was stayed pending a resolution of the MSPB proceeding. On February 26, 2025, the Board issued its Final Order. In that decision, the Board stated the following:

The essence of the appellant's argument that the removal was not rescinded is the Board has held that when, as here, a settlement agreement does not expressly provide that an appellant is to receive pay and benefits effective upon cancellation of a personnel action, the Board will not impose such a term and entitlement to those pay and/or benefits is effectively removed from the jurisdiction of the Board. Kelley v. Department of the Air Force, 50 M.S.P.R. 635, 642-43 (1991); see Wasserman v. U.S. Postal Service, 50 M.S.P.R. 643, 646 (1991).

Id. at 2 n.2 (record citation omitted).

Appellant makes the same argument in this forum. Here he contends that because the Board concluded that it lacks jurisdiction, he is entitled to another review of the same agreement here. The argument is without merit. In this case, the Board reviewed a Settlement Agreement entered into between parties to an MSPB proceeding. The Board then fully considered Petitioner's arguments in that forum and concluded that Petitioner's interpretation of the Settlement Agreement was incorrect under existing Board precedent. It then issued a Final Order.
Petitioner is not entitled to a second bite at the apple by seeking review of the debt and MSPB's interpretation of the Settlement Agreement in this Debt Collection Act proceeding. The parties initially agreed that the MSPB's interpretation was binding, and this case was stayed pending resolution of that proceeding. In general, when an issue has been fully litigated in a proceeding, it cannot be relitigated in another forum. This is otherwise known as issue preclusion or collateral estoppel. If the issue raised is identical to the issue raised in another forum where it was fully prosecuted and the parties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate that issue, which finding was necessary to the case, then the litigant is precluded from raising the issue again in another court. Banner v. United States, 238 F.3d 1348, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Here, the issues were fully litigated in that forum, the parties are the same as here, and a Final Order was issued by the Board, as a result I find that the Board's interpretation of the Settlement Agreement is res judicata in this case.¹
Accordingly, the Postal Service is entitled to judgment in its favor.

ORDER

The Petition is DENIED. The Postal Service may collect the debt of $3,169.35 (Invoice No. 703477048) by involuntary administrative offset.