Young v. United States
497 F. App'x 53
Fed. Cir.2012Background
- Young was active-duty Air Force member selected for PCS to Eielson AFB, notification July 2002, date of separation April 12, 2005.
- He needed retainability under AFI 36-2110; failure to obtain retainability could bar reenlistment, promotion, and longer service.
- Upon January 21, 2003, Military Personnel Flight executed a PCS declination statement in his absence, documenting ineligible status and a declination code in his record.
- Young declined to sign AF Form 964, but officials completed the form and issued related documentation.
- Correction Board found no error or injustice in the PCS process or in the declination; in April 2005 he was honorably discharged
- In 2011 Young filed suit in the Claims Court alleging wrongful discharge and related equitable and monetary relief requests; the court granted Government motions to dismiss and, sua sponte, dismissed equitable claims for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tucker Act jurisdiction supports Young’s money claims | Young’s claims arise from unlawful discharge and denied promotion, grounded in Military Pay Act | Claims Court had jurisdiction over money-mandating relief under the Military Pay Act | Yes; court had Tucker Act jurisdiction for money-mandating claims |
| Whether equitable relief claims are within Tucker Act jurisdiction | Equitable relief sought ancillary to money claims | Tucker Act lacks general equity jurisdiction for monetary cases | Equity claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the Correction Board’s PCS actions were proper | Declination process violated AFI 36-2110 and deprived retainability | Board found no error; actions consistent with AFI and regulations | Correction Board determinations not arbitrary or unjust |
| Standard of review for RCFC 52.1 judgment on the administrative record | Judgment should be guided by de novo review of the administrative record | Review is non-deferential but deferential to military records; substantial evidence standards apply | Court applied de novo review with no deference to agency determinations on material facts |
| Whether Young was ineligible for promotion or reenlistment due to declination | Declination rendered him ineligible for promotion/reenlistment | Declination Code properly rendered ineligibility; no entitlement to promotion or reenlistment | Young not entitled to retroactive promotion or reenlistment; claims lacking basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (money-mandating statute for wrongful discharge claims under Military Pay Act)
- Dysart v. United States, 369 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (money-mandating remedy for improper denial of promotion)
- Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (scope of review for military corrections decisions)
- Dodson, 988 F.2d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (no right to enlist or reenlist absent special grant)
- Wronke v. Marsh, 787 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (military deference in administrative decisions)
- Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing judgments on the administrative record)
- Bannum v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (judgment on the administrative record framework)