Bias v. United States
131 Fed. Cl. 350
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- Ronald Bias, a retired Lt. Col., was told in 2006 he had 20 years' qualifying service and retired effective November 1, 2006; he began receiving retirement pay.
- In 2009 the Marine Corps discovered an administrative error: on November 1, 2006 Bias had only ~18 years, 9 months active service; he was notified to return to active duty or be discharged.
- Bias returned to active duty August 1, 2009; DFAS sought recovery of approximately $117,194 in retirement pay paid from Nov 2006–July 2009.
- Bias petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (multiple petitions between 2007–2013) seeking reinstatement to active duty as of Nov 1, 2006, back pay, and other relief; Board decisions denied most relief until a 2016 remand.
- On remand the Board, following a DFAS advisory opinion, placed Bias in "de facto retired" status from Nov 1, 2006 through July 31, 2009, waived the related debt, and denied further relief (no reinstatement, no back pay beyond retirement pay, no correction of 2010 retirement).
- Bias sued in the Court of Federal Claims challenging the Board's partial relief; the court considered jurisdictional defenses, the statute of limitations, and whether the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over Military Pay Act claims for back pay | Bias says Military Pay Act provides money-mandating source for back pay and court may review Board decision | Gov't agrees MPA is money-mandating but contends some claims are time-barred or non-justiciable | Court: MPA supplies jurisdiction for money claims and review of Board decision; jurisdiction exists for claims arising after 2009 notice |
| Statute of limitations for 2006 retirement-related claims | Bias contends claims not barred because accrual was tolled or tied to later events (return to active duty/recoupment) | Gov't contends any claim arising from 2006 retirement accrued in 2006 and is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. §2501 | Court: Claims tied to consequences after the 2009 notice (return to duty, debt recovery) are not time-barred; pre-notice 2006 accrual argument rejected because notice in 2009 resolved accrual |
| Jurisdiction over 2010-retirement allegations (whistleblower/Privacy Act) | Bias alleges retaliation, privacy violations tied to 2010 retirement and seeks relief | Gov't argues Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over MWPA whistleblower claims and Privacy Act claims belong in district court | Court: Dismisses 2010-retirement claims for lack of jurisdiction (no jurisdiction over MWPA; Privacy Act claims belong in district courts) |
| Adequacy of Board's remedy (de facto retirement vs. reinstatement with back pay) | Bias argues partial relief insufficient; seeks reinstatement effective Nov 1, 2006 with full back pay and benefits | Gov't/Board argue de facto retirement corrected the error, DFAS recommended de facto remedy and debt waiver as equitable and consistent with doctrine | Court: Board's decision was not arbitrary or capricious; de facto retirement and debt waiver were reasonable and within Board authority, so plaintiff's cross-motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir.) (administrative-record proceedings and trial-court factfinding standard)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (Supreme Court) (Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity but requires separate money-mandating source)
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir.) (plaintiff must identify substantive source creating right to money damages)
- Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir.) (Military Pay Act as money-mandating source; accrual rules for back-pay claims)
- Wronke v. Marsh, 787 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir.) (standard that challenger must show cogent and clearly convincing evidence to overturn military board)