Frederick v. United States
17-831
| Fed. Cl. | Sep 28, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Gregory Devon Frederick enlisted in the U.S. Navy on November 21, 1996 and was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge on February 20, 2001.
- After discharge, Frederick applied to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) in 2005 (denied Oct. 26, 2005) and to the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) in 2006 (denied Aug. 21, 2006) and for reconsideration in 2009 (denied Oct. 6, 2009).
- Frederick’s submissions to the NDRB and BCNR largely mirrored the allegations in his 2017 complaint, describing various alleged mistreatment, denials of training/medical care, harassment, privacy violations, and related harms during his service.
- On June 19, 2017 (more than 15 years after discharge and more than six years after the BCNR’s last denial) Frederick filed a pro se complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims seeking relief for those alleged wrongs.
- The government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1), asserting the action is time-barred by the six-year statute in 28 U.S.C. § 2501 and that the Court of Federal Claims lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over tort, due-process, and civil-rights claims.
- The Court granted the government’s motion: it held the claims accrued at the date of discharge and thus were filed well outside § 2501’s six-year limit, and the court lacked jurisdiction over the tort and constitutional/civil-rights aspects of the complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Frederick’s claims are barred by the six-year Tucker Act limitations period (28 U.S.C. § 2501) | Frederick contests his discharge and previously sought relief from NDRB/BCNR; contends harms merit review (implicitly argues an entitlement to relief despite timing) | Claims accrued at discharge (Feb. 20, 2001); filing June 19, 2017 is untimely under § 2501 | Held: Time-barred — accrual at discharge; complaint filed well after six-year period; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over claims sounding in tort | Frederick’s allegations of mistreatment could be read as seeking redress for wrongs he suffered in service | Tort claims against the United States are excluded from CFC jurisdiction under the Tucker Act | Held: No jurisdiction over tort claims; such claims are outside the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction |
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims may adjudicate alleged due-process or civil-rights violations arising from military service | Frederick alleges due process, privacy and civil-rights harms in connection with his service and separation | The CFC lacks jurisdiction over constitutional due-process and civil-rights claims because they do not constitute money-mandating sources and district courts have original jurisdiction over civil-rights claims | Held: No jurisdiction over due-process or civil-rights claims; those are not cognizable in the CFC |
Key Cases Cited
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (court must resolve jurisdictional questions before reaching merits)
- Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731 (court may consider evidence outside the complaint to determine jurisdiction)
- John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (six-year § 2501 limitations period is jurisdictional and strictly construed)
- MacLean v. United States, 454 F.3d 1334 (military-discharge-related claims accrue at date of discharge)
- Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295 (accrual of claims relating to military discharge)
- Shearin v. United States, 992 F.2d 1195 (Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over tort claims)
- LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025 (CFC lacks jurisdiction over due-process claims that do not mandate payment of money)