FOWLER v. United States, 1:23-cv-02095

Gerry W. Fowler, a former Navy member, filed a claim for military disability retirement pay, alleging entitlement based on mental health disability.
The Court originally dismissed his claim, finding it was barred by the six-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2501.
Fowler sought reconsideration under RCFC 59, alleging the Court made factual and legal errors and requesting leave to amend his complaint.
Fowler argued he never received a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) review and the statute of limitations should be tolled due to mental incapacity.
The government provided evidence that Fowler did receive a PEB review and that his repeated advocacy over the years precluded tolling for legal disability.
The Court found that even new arguments or requests for relief, such as amending the complaint, would not overcome the jurisdictional bar.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Fowler received a PEB review in 1991	Fowler claims he only had a Medical Examination Board and was unaware of the PEB findings	Government submits PEB documents showing Fowler’s signature accepting findings	Court finds Fowler did receive and accept PEB findings
Whether claim is timely under the statute of limitations	Fowler argues for tolling due to severe mental disability and a 2018 letter from his congressman	Government: Plaintiff’s active legal efforts show no legal disability; statute of limitations is jurisdictional and strictly enforced	Court finds claims are time-barred regardless of new evidence or recent awareness
Whether post-separation events reset the accrual of the claim	Fowler claims BCNR reconsideration and new medical evidence reset finality	Government maintains later actions do not restart limitations period, unless new evidence is timely presented	Court holds BCNR’s later actions do not affect original accrual date; claim remains untimely
Effect of amending the complaint or remanding for further proceedings	Fowler seeks leave to amend, remand, and discovery to cure defects	Government: Amendment would be futile; court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction	Court finds amendment or remand futile; dismissal stands

United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976) (Tucker Act is jurisdictional and does not create enforceable substantive rights)
John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (2008) (limitations period under § 2501 is jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling)
Young v. United States, 529 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (statute of limitations for claims in the Court of Federal Claims cannot be tolled for equitable reasons)
Yuba Natural Res., Inc. v. United States, 904 F.2d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (motion for reconsideration lies within discretion of the court)
Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (subsequent actions before correction boards do not reset limitations period unless new evidence is timely presented)