Maxberry v. United States, 16-1256

Background

Maxberry served in the Army from Sept. 29, 1976 to June 23, 1978 and was separated under the Expeditious Discharge Program "under honorable conditions" after disciplinary issues and command-determined poor performance.
He signed discharge paperwork acknowledging voluntary consent and the opportunity to consult JAG; he could have withdrawn consent before approval but did not.
From 1984 through 2016 Maxberry repeatedly sought upgrades and a medical disability discharge from the Army Discharge Review Board and Army Board for Correction of Military Records; the boards denied relief as untimely or for lack of supporting medical evidence.
In 1987–88 he first raised a disability-retirement claim; the Correction Board refused to hear it as untimely in 1988. Subsequent petitions through 2016 were denied; the Correction Board found no evidence he was treated for disabling conditions during service.
Maxberry sued in the Court of Federal Claims in 2016 seeking upgraded discharge, disability/retirement pay, back pay, promotions, and various constitutional and statutory remedies; government moved to dismiss.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subject-matter jurisdiction for discharge/promotion claims (statute of limitations)	Maxberry contends discharge/promotion claims are timely and merits relief	Government: claims accrued at discharge or at first final denial and are time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2501	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: claims accrued in 1978 (discharge) or when first denied; suit filed in 2016 is untimely
Disability-retirement pay entitlement (money-mandating claim; accrual)	Maxberry asserts he should have been separated/retired for disability and is owed disability pay	Government: claim accrued when Correction Board first refused to hear it in 1988; therefore barred by 6-year limitations	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; disability claim accrued in 1988 and is untimely
Constitutional and statutory claims (money-mandating requirement)	Maxberry raises violations of multiple constitutional amendments and statutes (e.g., §1983, criminal statutes, DOMA)	Government: Constitutional provisions cited are not money-mandating; civil-rights and criminal remedies lie in district courts; statutes do not create right to money here	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: plaintiff failed to identify a money-mandating source under the Tucker Act
Challenge to voluntariness of Expeditious Discharge (substantive Military Pay Act claim)	Maxberry argues discharge was not voluntary and seeks relief under Military Pay Act	Government: administrative record shows voluntary consent and required procedural advisals; no evidence of involuntariness	Failure to state a claim: plaintiff did not show involuntariness, so Military Pay Act relief not available
Motions to supplement/suppress administrative record	Maxberry sought to add FOIA responses and other materials and to suppress parts of record (e.g., Article 15 records)	Government: existing administrative record is the proper review focal point; proposed supplements are either already in record or immaterial; suppression unjustified	Motions to supplement and to suppress denied; court limited review to administrative record before the Boards

Key Cases Cited

Testan v. United States, 424 U.S. 392 (statute providing jurisdiction does not itself create substantive right)
John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (statute of limitations in Court of Federal Claims is jurisdictional)
Chambers v. United States, 417 F.3d 1218 (disability-pay claims accrue when first competent board finally denies or refuses to hear claim)
Metz v. United States, 466 F.3d 991 (relief under Military Pay Act requires showing separation was involuntary)
Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (judicial review of agency action is limited to the administrative record)
Axiom Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1374 (record may be supplemented only when necessary for meaningful review)