Sharpe v. United States
134 Fed. Cl. 805
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- John F. Sharpe, a Navy officer, received non-judicial punishment in 2007 while technically assigned to the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson; he primarily worked ashore during that assignment. He was separated from the Navy on September 30, 2009.
- Sharpe later applied to the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), arguing the Article 15 "vessel exception" did not apply because he was not actually attached to/embarked on the ship; the BCNR vacated the punishment and ordered his record corrected to reflect continuous active duty.
- The BCNR's recommendation (approved by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy) did not specify how back pay should be calculated; parties and DFAS thereafter calculated back pay and most amounts were agreed and paid (about $666,471.49), but disputes remained.
- Remaining disputes: whether Sharpe is entitled to (1) Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) at the San Diego rate after the ship’s home port changed in 2010, (2) Career Sea Pay (CSP) and a CSP premium, and (3) whether Sharpe is judicially estopped from advancing inconsistent positions before the BCNR and the court.
- The Government argued Sharpe urged the BCNR to ignore his "on-paper" assignment to the ship (focusing on physical reality) and now seeks to rely on that same on-paper assignment to obtain higher BAH/CSP — prompting a judicial estoppel defense; the Navy calculated BAH at the Norfolk rate and denied CSP/CSP premium.
- The Court reviewed the agency record under the APA/Tucker Act, held that judgment on the administrative record is the proper vehicle, found Sharpe judicially estopped from his inconsistent positions, and alternatively held the Navy’s pay decisions were not arbitrary or capricious.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper procedural vehicle | Summary judgment appropriate — enforcing uncontested BCNR decision | Judgment on the administrative record appropriate because implementation (NPC/DFAS) is agency action | Judgment on the administrative record is proper |
| Judicial estoppel | Sharpe says "assignment" and "attachment" differ and he has been consistent | Government: Sharpe urged BCNR to ignore on-paper assignment, now seeks to rely on it for pay — inconsistent | Sharpe is judicially estopped from taking inconsistent positions |
| BAH rate (Norfolk v. San Diego) | Sharpe: corrected record shows continuous assignment to Carl Vinson; home-port shift to San Diego requires San Diego BAH from April 1, 2010 | Govt/Navy: Sharpe never lived/searched housing in San Diego; equitable focus should be on physical reality and pre-separation status (Norfolk) | Navy reasonably paid Norfolk BAH; San Diego rate denied |
| CSP and CSP premium entitlement | Sharpe: corrected assignment record entitles him to CSP and premium despite lack of sea service | Govt/Navy: CSP requires actual sea service/serving on a ship; Sharpe never performed sea duty — denial proper | Denial of CSP and CSP premium was reasonable and lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (1997) (judicial estoppel framework and factors)
- Data Gen. Corp. v. Johnson, 78 F.3d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (party cannot assert inconsistent positions to courts)
- Metz v. United States, 466 F.3d 991 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (military pay / correction-board decisions reviewed on administrative record)
- Boruski v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 320 (Ct. Cl. 1957) (entitlement to specialized pay requires performance of the underlying duty — factual participation required)
- Groves v. United States, 47 F.3d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (special pay may be discretionary with service secretary; courts review procedural compliance)