William Havens v, Raymond Edwin Mabus, Jr., Secretary of the Navy Chairman, Board for Corrections of Naval Records
411 U.S. App. D.C. 282
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- Havens, a retired Navy Reserve officer, seeks correction of his record to reflect disability retirement rather than discharge, alleging disability from psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis.
- He served active duty 1980–1996, transferred to Selected Reserve in 1996 after not being promoted, and to Retired Reserve in 2002 as Not Physically Qualified.
- BCNR denied Havens’s multiple record-correction requests (2000–2007); he challenged those denials in district court and previously in the Court of Federal Claims (CFC).
- DES/PEB processes govern disability determinations; Not Physically Qualified yields no retirement benefits, unlike Unfit or Fit, with significant eligibility differences.
- District court dismissed Havens’s claims as barred by res judicata due to the prior CFC dismissal under the Tucker Act; the court did not resolve statute-of-limitations issues.
- The appeal concludes that some APA challenges to 2006–2007 BCNR decisions survive, while claims related to earlier discharges and BCNR denials are barred by the APA statute of limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars Havens’s suit in light of the CFC dismissal | Havens argues the CFC dismissal was not a final merits judgment and thus not res judicata | District court held the CFC dismissal precludes Havens under res judicata | Res judicata does not bar because CFC dismissal was not a final merits judgment |
| Whether the APA six-year statute of limitations bars Havens’s claims | Havens contends some APA claims accrued in 2006–2007 and Fall within six years | Secretary argues limitations bar the earlier-discharge-related claims | APA limitations bar the 1996/2002 discharge and earlier BCNR denials; timely for 2006–2007 BCNR decisions |
| Whether Havens’s APA claims regarding 2006–2007 BCNR decisions are timely | Claims accrued on the 2006–2007 BCNR decisions | Claims accrued earlier or are time-barred | Yes, timely under the six-year window; remand for further proceedings on these claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (U.S. 2001) (dismissal without prejudice may not preclude in other forums; governs finality)
- Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (U.S. 1995) (statutory/finality rules treated as final in context of dismissals)
- Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Tucker Act limitations accrual timing)
- Kasap v. Folger Nolan Fleming & Douglas, Inc., 166 F.3d 1243 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction not res judicata)
- Prakash v. Am. Univ., 727 F.2d 1174 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (res judicata and merits analysis)
- Smalls v. United States, 471 F.3d 186 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (limits-based res judicata across jurisdictions discussed)
- Malladi Drugs & Pharm., Ltd. v. Tandy, 552 F.3d 885 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (APA/limitations interplay in D.C. Cir.)
- Jones v. Horne, 634 F.3d 588 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (interpretation of adjudication on the merits)
- Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (U.S. 2001) (see above)