Melson v. United States, 17-540

Background

Melson served in the Army Reserve and began active duty in May 2008; he alleges adverse personnel actions and an involuntary separation in November 2008 (resignation in lieu of separation).
He pursued administrative remedies: filed with HHS OIG/EEOC/EEO, was dismissed by the EEO for untimeliness, and sought relief from the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) and a Public Health Service correction board.
Melson alleges the ABCMR wrongly denied service-connection for a medical condition and seeks correction of his discharge, expungement of adverse records, retirement benefits, punitive damages, and travel costs.
He filed this action in the Court of Federal Claims on April 17, 2017, invoking Tucker Act jurisdiction to challenge the boards’ decisions and seek monetary and non-monetary relief.
The United States moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 2501 statute of limitations) and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim under RCFC 12(b)(6); the court granted dismissal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Melson's claims are time-barred under the six-year Tucker Act statute of limitations	Melson contends accrual occurred on March 22, 2016 (HHS decision) and that delays are attributable to the Department; invokes continuing-claim doctrine	Government argues claims accrued at discharge and thus were filed after the six-year period; administrative board decisions do not delay accrual	Held: Claims accrued at discharge and are untimely; tolling by seeking board relief does not restart the limitations period; continuing-claim doctrine inapplicable
Whether the Court has jurisdiction over hostile work environment / discrimination and emotional distress allegations	Melson alleges hostile work environment and emotional harm tied to involuntary separation	Government argues such tort/hostile-work-environment claims fall outside the Court of Federal Claims’ limited jurisdiction	Held: Court lacks jurisdiction over tort-like hostile work environment and emotional distress claims
Whether punitive damages and certain equitable relief (e.g., expungement, punitive damages, travel costs) are available in this Court	Melson seeks punitive damages, expungement, retroactive retirement, and travel costs	Government contends punitive damages and certain equitable/tort relief are beyond the Court’s authority	Held: Punitive damages not allowed; requested tort relief and some equitable remedies fall outside Court’s jurisdiction
Whether Melson’s hostile work environment/discrimination allegations state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)	Melson asserts a series of adverse acts amounting to discrimination/hostile environment and caused his separation	Government contends allegations are conclusory and lack factual specificity linking incidents to discharge	Held: Even if jurisdiction existed, allegations are conclusory and fail to state a plausible claim; dismissed on merits as well

Key Cases Cited

Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (application to correction boards is permissive and does not postpone accrual of wrongful-discharge claims)
Ingrum v. United States, 560 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (claim accrues when events fix government liability)
John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (2008) (statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2501 is jurisdictional)
Wells v. United States, 420 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (continuing-claim doctrine requires separable, repeating wrongs/payments)
Brown Park Estates-Fairfield Dev. Co. v. United States, 127 F.3d 1449 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (continuing-claim doctrine framework)
Friedman v. United States, 310 F.2d 381 (Ct. Cl. 1962) (continuing claim applied where periodic payments give rise to new claims)
Cottrell v. United States, 42 Fed. Cl. 144 (1998) (Court lacks jurisdiction over tort claims)
Mastrolia v. United States, 91 Fed. Cl. 369 (2010) (Court lacks authority to award punitive damages)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must plead facts plausibly suggesting entitlement to relief)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (subject-matter jurisdiction must be established before addressing merits)