Pipes v. United States
134 Fed. Cl. 380
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- Pipes served in the USAF for ~16 years (active and reserve) as a Transportation/Logistics officer.
- In 2004–2006, the USAF began a fitness program (SFIP) requiring annual fitness assessments; Pipes failed multiple fitness tests and was enrolled in SFIP.
- Medical records showed high blood pressure and hypertension during (and after) testing; his health raised concerns about fitness for duty.
- Pipes suffered a stroke on September 3–4, 2006 during SFIP activity; the cause and line-of-duty status became central to disability retirement eligibility.
- USAF later determined pipes was medically disqualified and pursued retirement/discharge actions; AFRC considered retirement options and AFBCMR denied correction of records in 2013.
- Plaintiff filed a Tucker Act complaint in the Court of Federal Claims on October 9, 2015 seeking disability retirement pay, among other relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. | Pipes argues jurisdiction exists due to money-mandating §1204 and accrued timely under 28 U.S.C. §2501. | Government asserts lack of jurisdiction because accrual occurred by 2007 and the 2015 suit is time-barred. | Jurisdiction found; complaint timely under theory that accrual occurred in 2013 or 2015 under Real/Chambers principles. |
| Whether the claim accrued before 2015 for statute of limitations purposes. | Accrual did not occur until AFBCMR denial (Feb 23, 2013) or upon proper IPEB/LODs. | Accrual occurred when Pipes waived a medical board/discharged (Feb 4, 2007 or Sept 15, 2008). | Court found accrual largely hinges on whether a proper disability review board was available and whether Pipes waived rights; remand favored to re-evaluate under Real/Chambers framework. |
| Whether Pipes stated a cognizable claim under 10 U.S.C. §1204 for disability retirement. | SFIP participation could constitute IDT; stroke occurred during SFIP; he lacked 20 years or 30% VA rating, but VA rating later supported disability. | SFIP not IDT; stroke not in the line of duty; Plaintiff lacked required service/VA rating; PEB/LODs not properly pursued. | Court recognized potential 12042(B) and 1204(4) claims and granted cross-motion for judgment on the administrative record, remanding to AFBCMR for reconsideration in light of new evidence. |
| Whether the AFBCMR decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence. | AFBCMR failed to consider key medical records and sworn statements showing IDT status;.order to reconsider warranted. | AFBCMR’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and proper process; lack of records did not prove error. | Court held AFBCMR decision warranted remand for reconsideration in light of new evidence; not final on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. United States, 417 F.3d 1218 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (accrual of disability retirement claims depends on final action by the first competent board)
- Real v. United States, 906 F.2d 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (limits waiver when proper duty review is unavailable; focus on line-of-duty eligibility)
- Friedman v. United States, 310 F.2d 381 (Ct. Cl. 1962) (first-competent-board accrual; continuing-pay concepts)
- Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (accrual when liability is fixed; framework for claims under Tucker Act)
- Testan v. United States, 424 U.S. 392 (U.S. 1976) (Tucker Act is jurisdictional; requires money-mandating source)
- Todd v. United States, 386 F.3d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (requires independent money-munding source to establish jurisdiction)
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (recognizes money-mandating source for compensation claims)
- Soriano v. United States, 352 U.S. 270 (1957) (statute-based timeliness constraints for Tucker Act actions)