Ocansey v. United States
21-1581
| Fed. Cl. | Aug 11, 2021Background
- In 1981 Toia D. Ocansey received an honorable discharge from the U.S. Air Force; the DD Form 14 listed the narrative reason as “Unsuitability—Personality Disorder.”
- Years later the VA assigned Ocansey a 30% disability rating for unspecified trauma; she asked the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) to change her discharge reason to service‑connected PTSD arising from military sexual trauma.
- In 2021 the AFBCMR, relying on a Psychological Advisor, concluded she did not have a personality disorder at discharge, granted the request in part, and changed the narrative reason to “Secretarial Authority” (separation code JFF) but declined to add a PTSD diagnosis to the DD Form 14 to avoid intrusive personal history.
- Ocansey sued in the Court of Federal Claims seeking $150,000 compensatory and $150,000 punitive damages for libel, slander, and medical malpractice based on the original narrative reason; she did not challenge the Board’s correction.
- The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction; the Court evaluated Tucker Act jurisdiction and whether any money‑mandating statute supports her damage claims.
- The Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and granted Ocansey’s motion to file her complaint under seal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims has Tucker Act jurisdiction over Ocansey's libel/slander/medical malpractice claims | Ocansey seeks money damages for reputational and medical harms caused by the Air Force listing a personality disorder | Claims sound in tort and thus are outside the Court of Federal Claims' Tucker Act jurisdiction | Dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction; tort claims are not cognizable under the Tucker Act |
| Whether the Military Claims Act (MCA) provides a money‑mandating source for Tucker Act jurisdiction | Ocansey contends MCA (10 U.S.C. §§ 2731–2740) supports her claims | MCA authorizes but does not require payment and is not money‑mandating for Tucker Act purposes | MCA not money‑mandating; cannot confer Tucker Act jurisdiction |
| Whether a separate substantive source of law entitles Ocansey to money damages | Ocansey alleges libel, slander, and malpractice give rise to damages | Government: plaintiff must identify a separate money‑mandating statute or contractual source; she has not | No money‑mandating source identified; jurisdiction not established |
| Whether plaintiff's motion to seal should be granted | Ocansey requested sealing under Rule 5.2 to protect sensitive information | No opposition shown; Court to balance privacy and public‑filed pleadings | Motion to seal granted; complaint filed under seal |
Key Cases Cited
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (jurisdiction is prerequisite to merits; courts may raise lack of jurisdiction sua sponte)
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (Tucker Act is jurisdictional and does not itself create substantive money‑mandating rights)
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (plaintiff must identify a separate money‑mandating source to invoke Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- Rick's Mushroom Service v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338 (professional negligence claims are torts)
- Collins v. United States, 67 F.3d 284 (Military Claims Act is not money‑mandating for Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards)
- Folden v. United States, 379 F.3d 1344 (Court of Federal Claims may address jurisdictional defects at any time)