Matthews v. United States
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8384
| Fed. Cir. | 2014Background
- Matthews enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1990 and was on active duty when arrested in 2006, later convicted and serving a federal prison sentence.
- The Navy administrative separation board voted in 2007 to discharge him with an "other than honorable" characterization; Matthews contends the discharge was invalid and that he never received proper discharge papers or an authentic DD‑214.
- Matthews sued in the Court of Federal Claims seeking back pay from the date his pay ceased (his arrest), retainer pay based on an asserted 20 years of active service, and damages under several federal statutes.
- The Court of Federal Claims dismissed statutory damages claims for lack of money‑mandating basis and dismissed the back pay and retainer pay claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
- On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed: Matthews is not entitled to pay while in civilian confinement after conviction (37 U.S.C. § 503) and time in civilian confinement does not count toward the 20‑year active‑duty threshold for retainer pay (10 U.S.C. § 6330(b)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to back pay after arrest/conviction | Matthews: He was never properly discharged under 10 U.S.C. § 1168 and thus remains on active duty, so he is owed back pay under 37 U.S.C. § 204 | Government: Convicted and confined civilians are absent without leave; § 503 bars pay during non‑unavoidable AWOL; civilian confinement after conviction is not "unavoidable" | Held: Dismissed — absence due to civilian confinement after conviction is not "unavoidable," so no back pay entitlement |
| Entitlement to retainer pay based on 20 years of active service | Matthews: Time incarcerated should count toward 20 years, making him eligible for retainer pay | Government: Time in civilian confinement does not count; Matthews had not accrued 20 years by arrest or enlistment expiration and did not re‑enlist while confined | Held: Dismissed — confinement time does not count and he did not meet 20‑year requirement |
| Jurisdiction under money‑mandating statutes (e.g., § 204) | Matthews: Metz means § 204 is money‑mandating and Court of Federal Claims may decide pay claims on merits | Government: Does not dispute § 204 is money‑mandating here; Court of Federal Claims dismissed on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds, not lack of jurisdiction | Held: Court had jurisdiction but still properly dismissed on the merits under Rule 12(b)(6) |
| Validity/effect of alleged defective discharge paperwork | Matthews: Improper discharge (lack of certificate/true DD‑214) means he remained on active duty | Government: Even if discharge paperwork were flawed, pay unavailable while absent without leave unless absence is unavoidable; civilian confinement after conviction is not unavoidable | Held: Paperwork defect does not overcome statutory bar to pay during civilian confinement |
Key Cases Cited
- Hearts Bluff Game Ranch, Inc. v. United States, 669 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir.) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Kam‑Almaz v. United States, 682 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir.) (pleading must plausibly suggest entitlement to relief)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S.) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S.) (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards)
- Metz v. United States, 466 F.3d 991 (Fed. Cir.) (37 U.S.C. § 204 is money‑mandating)