Luther Brady Tansil v. United States
113 Fed. Cl. 256
Fed. Cl.2013Background
- Luther Brady Tansil served ~13 years in the U.S. Navy and was convicted at a 1991 special court-martial for cocaine use; he received a bad-conduct discharge effective March 31, 1994.
- He sought correction of his naval record and upgrade of his bad-conduct discharge to a more favorable discharge; BCNR denied relief in March 2008 and again on reconsideration in April 2009.
- Tansil filed suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims on February 9, 2012, seeking back pay and correction of his discharge characterization.
- Central legal theory: Tansil contended that DoD/Navy rules (32 C.F.R. § 62.4) required referral to rehabilitation rather than discharge, and that failure to follow that policy made his discharge improper.
- Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. § 2501 (six-year statute of limitations for claims against the United States); the court considered accrual suspension and the statutory ‘‘legal disability’’ tolling exception raised by Tansil.
- The Court held the claim accrued at discharge (March 31, 1994); accrual suspension did not apply, and Tansil’s incarceration/addiction did not qualify as a legal disability that tolls § 2501; his 2007 BCNR filing also defeated any continuing disability tolling. The suit was dismissed as time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the claim accrue under § 2501? | Accrual may be suspended; claim timely if suspension or tolling applies | Claim accrued at discharge (Mar 31, 1994) and § 2501 bars actions after six years | Claim accrues at discharge; Tansil’s suit (2012) is untimely |
| Does accrual suspension apply because plaintiff lacked knowledge of regulatory remedy? | Tansil lacked knowledge of 32 C.F.R. § 62.4 and thus could not have known a claim existed | Published regulations give constructive notice; no concealment or inherently unknowable injury | Accrual suspension unavailable; publication in Federal Register gives notice |
| Does ‘‘person under legal disability’’ toll § 2501 for Tansil (incarceration, drug addiction)? | Tansil is a recovering addict and incarcerated; qualifies as legal disability so 3-year toll applies after disability ends | Narcotic addiction and imprisonment do not automatically create legal disability; claimant must show incapacity at accrual and continuous disability | Neither addiction nor imprisonment made Tansil legally disabled for tolling; claim not saved |
| Did filing with BCNR affect tolling period? | Filing with BCNR shows claimant sought relief and may have remained disabled thereafter | Filing indicates claimant was capable of pursuing remedies; any disability lifted by 2007 BCNR application | BCNR filing (May 2, 2007) indicates no continuing legal disability; three-year period expired in 2010 |
Key Cases Cited
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (court must decide jurisdiction before merits)
- Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (1868) (when jurisdiction lacking court must dismiss)
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (1941) (sovereign immunity and waiver rules)
- John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (2008) (§ 2501 is a jurisdictional condition that generally cannot be tolled)
- Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (military pay claims accrue at discharge; accrual suspension doctrine explained)
- Higashi v. United States, 225 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (publication in Federal Register gives constructive notice of regulations)
- Goewey v. United States, 612 F.2d 539 (Ct. Cl. 1979) (narcotic addiction alone does not constitute tolling legal disability)
- Smith v. Secretary of the Army, 384 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Military Pay Act is money-mandating for Tucker Act jurisdiction)