Jeffry Schmidt v. United States, 409 U.S. App. D.C. 339

Jeffry Schmidt, a Marine discharged for disability in 1989 with a 10% rating, later received higher VA disability ratings and sought correction of his military record from the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR).
BCNR denied his initial request in 1992; Schmidt sought reconsideration in 2008 based on new VA diagnoses (PTSD, depression) and an increased VA rating.
The BCNR Acting Executive Director denied the 2008 reconsideration; Schmidt sued in the Court of Federal Claims asserting various claims, including an APA challenge to the procedure allowing the Acting Executive Director (rather than Board members) to deny reconsideration.
The Court of Federal Claims transferred only the procedural APA claim to the D.C. District Court; the parties jointly agreed to remand that claim to the BCNR so the Board (not the Acting Executive Director) would reconsider.
On remand the BCNR denied relief on the merits (March 17, 2011); Schmidt attempted to file an amended complaint in district court challenging the merits but did so without opposing counsel’s consent or leave of court.
The District Court disallowed the amended complaint and dismissed the case as moot because the originally transferred procedural claim had been fully remedied by the remand; the D.C. Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the case remained live after BCNR remand	Schmidt argued the Board’s post-remand merits decision remained reviewable in district court and was a live APA claim	Govt argued remand cured the sole procedural defect (Acting Executive Director decision) so the transferred APA claim was moot; any new merits claim was not properly before the court	Case was moot: remand cured the only claim transferred to district court; dismissal affirmed
Whether Schmidt properly amended to add a merits APA claim	Schmidt contended his filings preserved jurisdiction and effectively raised a merits challenge	Govt contended the amended complaint was filed without consent or court leave, so it had no legal effect under Rule 15	Amendment was improper; Rule 15(a)(2) not satisfied, so the merits claim was not before the court
Whether courts should relax Rule 15 for veterans’ claims	Schmidt urged equitable treatment given veteran status	Govt maintained procedural rules apply equally; no exception warranted	Court declined to excuse Rule 15; veterans are not exempt from procedural rules
Whether alternative bases for dismissal need resolution	Schmidt argued merits/timing and Tucker Act jurisdiction issues should be decided	Govt argued mootness disposed of the case; alternative grounds were preserved in district court	Court did not reach alternative grounds; vacated district court’s discussion of them and affirmed dismissal on mootness

Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. United States, 570 F.3d 316 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (standard of appellate review for jurisdictional dismissals)
Larsen v. U.S. Navy, 525 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (definition of mootness as issues no longer live)
County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625 (U.S. 1979) (when courts can provide no effective remedy)
Conservation Force, Inc. v. Jewell, 733 F.3d 1200 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (obtaining all the relief sought renders case moot)
Belizan v. Hershon, 434 F.3d 579 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (leave to amend under Rule 15 applies only when motion is made)
Rollins v. Wackenhut Servs., Inc., 703 F.3d 122 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (procedural compliance requirement for amendments)
United States ex rel. Mathews v. HealthSouth Corp., 332 F.3d 293 (5th Cir. 2003) (an improperly filed amendment without leave or consent is a nullity)
Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67 (U.S. 1983) (mootness divests federal court jurisdiction)