McCord v. United States, 16-310

Preston McCord served in the Army (2008–2012); discharged in May 2012 with severance pay after a PEB rated him 20% disabled; he then received VA disability compensation beginning June 2012.
McCord sought correction from the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to upgrade his rating to 30% and to receive medical retirement; ABCMR denied, McCord sued in the Court of Federal Claims.
The Court found the ABCMR’s denial arbitrary and remanded, directing correction of records, medical retirement, and back pay; ABCMR/Secretary approved the remand relief and instructed DFAS to compute payments.
DFAS calculated McCord’s reconstructed entitlement and, because McCord elected to waive military retirement pay to keep full VA benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 5304, concluded his retroactive military pay entitlement was only $37.60 (pro rata).
McCord challenged DFAS’s methodology, potential recoupment of his 2012 severance pay, and sought reimbursement for extra health-insurance premiums and out-of-pocket medical costs he incurred because he lacked TRICARE.
The Court resolved these issues on remand: upheld DFAS’s computation (denying additional back pay), declined to decide severance recoupment (not ripe), awarded reimbursement for excess insurance premiums, and denied direct reimbursement for medical co-pays pending TRICARE administrative exhaustion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper back-pay calculation	McCord: § 5304 inapplicable because he never concurrently received military pay and VA benefits; lump-sum pay now should not be offset	Gov: Remedy reconstructs what would have happened; § 5304 prevents double recovery; DFAS method correct	Held: DFAS methodology and § 5304 apply; McCord’s additional back-pay request denied
Recoupment of severance pay	McCord: 10 U.S.C. § 1174(h)(1) permits recoupment only via deductions from retirement pay; he waived retirement pay, so recoupment improper	Gov: DFAS may establish a debt and pursue collection; agency may also waive collection under FMR authority	Held: Not ripe; potential DoD waiver available; claim denied without prejudice
Reimbursement for insurance premiums	McCord: Entitled to monetary valuation of TRICARE benefit under 10 U.S.C. § 1552; paid more for employer insurance than TRICARE costs	Gov: Relies on Lord to deny premium recovery	Held: McCord entitled to difference; Court awarded $7,073.87 for excess premiums (total judgment $7,111.47 incl. other amounts)
Reimbursement for co-pays/out-of-pocket medical costs	McCord: TRICARE should reimburse past medical expenses incurred due to lack of coverage	Gov: TRICARE administratively handles reimbursement; claims may be time-barred	Held: Denied in this proceeding; McCord must file DD Form 2642 and exhaust TRICARE administrative remedies; court expects gov’t to assist re timeliness

Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir.) (plaintiff in military-pay cases entitled to the pay they would have received but for the unlawful action)
Absher v. United States, 9 Cl. Ct. 223 (Ct. Cl.) (statute precludes concurrent receipt of full military retirement pay and VA benefits)
Lord v. United States, 2 Cl. Ct. 749 (Ct. Cl.) (remedy limited to monetary payments plaintiff would have received if placed on retired status)
Adams v. United States, 126 Fed. Cl. 645 (Fed. Cl.) (DFAS has reimbursed TRICARE-related premiums after correction to retired status; TRICARE claims require exhaustion)
Dolan v. United States, 91 Fed. Cl. 111 (Fed. Cl.) (correction intended to place servicemember in position they would have been absent the error)
Barnick v. United States, 80 Fed. Cl. 545 (Fed. Cl.) (record correction places claimant in same position; no additional relief required)