Otis v. United States
24-908
Fed. Cl.Mar 21, 2025Background
- Ryan J. Otis, a former U.S. Army Second Lieutenant, was discharged after a Board of Inquiry (BOI) found derogatory information (a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, or GOMOR) in his personnel record, despite the Board finding the underlying misconduct unsubstantiated.
- Otis’s GOMOR was later found invalid and removed from his record by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) after remand from federal district court, but he remained discharged.
- Otis filed a wrongful discharge action in the Court of Federal Claims, seeking reinstatement, back pay, and various other remedies, after an earlier case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to concurrent proceedings.
- The United States moved to dismiss, arguing Otis had waived his wrongful discharge claim by not raising it before the ABCMR and that several requested remedies were outside the court’s jurisdiction.
- The court considered whether Otis had to exhaust his claims before the ABCMR, and which forms of relief are available in a wrongful discharge case under the Tucker Act and the Military Pay Act.
Issues
| Issue | Otis's Argument | U.S. Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of wrongful discharge claim by not raising to ABCMR | Had no basis for wrongful discharge claim until GOMOR removal; claim never before ABCMR | Otis waived claim by not raising at ABCMR | No waiver; exhaustion not required |
| Available remedies under Tucker Act and Military Pay Act | Seeks reinstatement, back pay, career-long pay, and other compensatory/damages | Claims for certain relief (beyond back pay and reinstatement) outside court’s authority | Only reinstatement, back pay, and record correction allowed |
| Court’s jurisdiction over tort-type and other damages | Seeks compensation for harm, emotional distress, legal/medical costs, reputational harm | Such remedies are tort-based and beyond jurisdiction | No jurisdiction over tort-like or broad compensatory remedies |
| Authority to order investigation of accuser | Requests Army be ordered to investigate accuser | Court cannot order such investigation; not tied to monetary relief | No authority to grant this relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (clarifying exhaustion not required before ABCMR and delineating scope of Tucker Act)
- Metz v. United States, 466 F.3d 991 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (Military Pay Act is money-mandating for wrongful discharge claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for motions to dismiss)
- Bell Atl. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (same, pleading standard)
- Tippett v. United States, 28 F. App’x 942 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (remedies in wrongful discharge cases)
- Christian v. United States, 337 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (constructive service doctrine for back pay)