Lewis v. United States
114 Fed. Cl. 682
| Fed. Cl. | 2014Background
- Troy Allen Lewis, a Navy ensign and Uniformed Services University medical student, was arrested April 23, 2007 in an undercover operation, convicted by a jury on September 19, 2007, and sentenced to 151 months imprisonment; he remains incarcerated.
- The Navy convened a Board of Inquiry in June 2009 without Lewis present (his counsel objected to proceeding in absentia); the Board recommended separation for misconduct and service characterization under other than honorable conditions.
- Lewis was separated from the Navy on March 11, 2010. He seeks back pay and allowances from Sept. 15, 2007 to present, and alternatively seeks separation pay under 10 U.S.C. § 1174.
- The government invoked 37 U.S.C. § 503(a) (forfeiture of pay for absence without leave or confinement by civil authorities) to deny pay during incarceration and argued Lewis lacked requisite years of active service for separation pay.
- The court concluded the Board’s proceedings violated Navy procedural rules by proceeding in Lewis’s absence, thereby disapproving the Board process, but held Lewis is not entitled to monetary relief because § 503(a) forfeits pay during his continued incarceration and voiding the discharge would only reinstate him (no money remedy available).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to back pay/allowances while incarcerated | Lewis contends he was not AWOL and thus entitled to pay under the Military Pay Act | Gov't contends 37 U.S.C. § 503(a) forfeits pay when a member is confined by civil authorities and tried/convicted | Held for defendant: § 503(a) bars pay during his confinement, so no back pay or allowances |
| Applicability of Bell precedent | Lewis relies on Bell to argue pay rights survive absent explicit forfeiture | Gov't says Bell concerns different statutes and does not overcome § 503(a) forfeiture | Held for defendant: Bell inapposite; § 503(a) controls |
| Eligibility for separation pay under 10 U.S.C. § 1174 (years of active service) | Lewis argues service as a commissioned student at Uniformed Services University counts as active duty and gives him 6+ years | Gov't contends statutory service-credit exclusions make university time noncreditable toward separation pay | Held for plaintiff on this narrow issue: court treats university service as active-duty time for § 1174 purposes (counts toward 6 years) |
| Effect of Board procedural defects on monetary relief | Lewis argues Board violated procedural/due-process rules, making discharge void and entitling him to separation pay | Gov't notes improper Board might void discharge but Lewis remains incarcerated so pay would still be forfeited | Held: Court disapproves Board proceedings as procedurally improper but cannot grant monetary relief because reinstatement (vacatur) would not overcome § 503(a) forfeiture and court lacks equitable-only jurisdiction without money judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. United States, 366 U.S. 393 (1961) (soldiers entitled to statutory pay unless AWOL/deserter or court-martial forfeiture)
- Stone v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl. 604 (1979) (incarceration by civilian authorities precludes pay under forfeiture provision)
- Austin v. United States, 206 Ct. Cl. 719 (1975) (civilian incarceration not an unavoidable absence; no back pay)
- Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153 (1983) (standards for judicial review of military separation actions)
- VanderMolen v. Stetson, 571 F.2d 617 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (agency must follow its own procedural regulations; failure can void proceedings)
- Lindsay v. United States, 295 F.3d 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (military must abide by promulgated procedural regulations)
- Wisotsky v. United States, 69 Fed. Cl. 299 (2006) (voiding Navy Board where procedural requirements were not met)