Stewart v. United States
17-200
Fed. Cl.Jul 20, 2017Background
- Marvin L. Stewart, a former Coast Guard member, was court-martialed in 1971 (acquitted) and received a general discharge for unsuitability while on Not Fit For Duty status for a service-connected back injury.
- Stewart alleges he never received a required separation medical exam, claims the Coast Guard falsified medical records (including forged signatures), and seeks back pay, allowances, ancillary expenses, and disability retirement.
- Stewart repeatedly sought relief from the Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR) in 1976 and 1995; the BCMR corrected his discharge in 1979 but denied later claims (including disability) in 1996.
- Stewart filed multiple suits in the Court of Federal Claims and federal district courts from 1997 onward; earlier CFC and Federal Circuit decisions dismissed his claims as time-barred or on res judicata grounds.
- Defendant moved to dismiss the 2017 complaint for lack of jurisdiction (RCFC 12(b)(1)), arguing issue preclusion and the six-year statute of limitations (28 U.S.C. § 2501) bar the claims.
- The Court concluded Stewart’s claims were precluded by prior adjudications and, alternatively, barred by the statute of limitations, and granted the Government’s motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Stewart's wrongful discharge claim | Stewart contends the discharge was wrongful and based on falsified medical records; seeks back pay and benefits | Prior CFC and Federal Circuit rulings decided identical jurisdictional/timeliness issues; claim is precluded | Dismissed: issue precluded by prior decisions; no jurisdiction |
| Whether Stewart may relitigate BCMR denials (disability retirement and ancillary relief) | Stewart seeks review and relief for disability retirement and administrative delays | Review is barred by res judicata/issue preclusion; no new curative facts alleged | Dismissed: precluded and untimely |
| Whether the wrongful-discharge claim is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2501 | Stewart argues administrative errors and forged records excuse delay | Accrual date is discharge (1971); Tucker Act claims must be filed within six years; claimant did not cure jurisdictional defect | Dismissed: barred by six-year statute of limitations |
| Whether the disability-retirement claim accrual was tolled until BCMR denial | Stewart seeks disability retirement; argues claim is timely now | Disability-retirement accrual waits until military board’s final decision; BCMR denied it in 1996, beyond six years before filing | Dismissed: accrual at 1996 denial; claim time-barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (court must accept well-pled facts and draw reasonable inferences on a motion to dismiss)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (pro se complaints are to be liberally construed)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
- Kelley v. Sec'y, United States Dep't of Labor, 812 F.2d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (pro se status does not excuse jurisdictional requirements)
- DaCosta v. United States, [citation="393 F. App'x 712"] (Fed. Cir. 2010) (prior jurisdictional dismissal bars relitigation unless curable defect shown)
- Chambers v. United States, 417 F.3d 1218 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (disability-retirement claims accrue upon final military-board action)
- Lockwood v. United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 210 (2008) (statute of limitations accrual: when government liability is fixed)
- Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (start date for § 2501 is when claimant can demand payment)
- Hurick v. Lehman, 782 F.2d 984 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (wrongful-discharge claim accrues on date of discharge)