By Edwin  Crosby  III ,   Staff Writer

 

Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, read 38 USC § 511, here it is; “ (a) the Secretary shall decide all questions of law and fact necessary to a decision by the Secretary under a law that affects the provision of benefits by the Secretary to veterans or the dependents or survivors of veterans. Subject to subsection (b), the decision of the Secretary as to any such question shall be final and conclusive and may not be reviewed by any other official or by any court, whether by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise “. END QUOTE. ( underscoring supplied )

By  Edwin Crosby III – Staff Writer

 

To clarify and give meaning of finger pointing directly at the NEW FUHRER give the following remarks from SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGE of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals a big weight upon the scale of that which is fair and just.  Quoting Judge SCHROEDER:

 

“ Let me see if I’ve got this straight:  in order to be grounded

I’ve got to be crazy and I must be crazy to keep flying.  But

If I ask to be grounded, that means I’m not crazy any more

And I have to keep flying “.  ( Paramount Pictures 1970

Catch – 22 ).  End quote

Lawyer letter to Varo, NYC

Read Here 

Joinder, Kendall - VA LAWSUIT JOINDER NOTICE - UPDATED 8.27.2012

The form is now updated to show "SO SWORN" instead of S.S. which had caused some confusion. 

Download Document Here 

CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS  18 USC 241

This preliminary release may be subject to further revision before it is released again as a final version. As with other online versions of the Code, the U.S. Code Classification Tables should be consulted for the latest laws affecting the Code. Those using the USCPrelim should verify the text against the printed slip laws available from GPO(Government Printing Office), the laws as shown on THOMAS (a legislative service of the Library of Congress), and the final version of the Code when it becomes available.

Current through Pub. L. 112-123. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Download document here.

Download document here.

Title 32: National Defense
PART 581—PERSONNEL REVIEW BOARD

§ 581.3   Army Board for Correction of Military Records.

(a) General—(1) Purpose. This section prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).

(2) Statutory authority. Title 10 U.S.C Section 1552, Correction of Military Records: Claims Incident Thereto, is the statutory authority for this regulation.

(b) Responsibilities—(1) The Secretary of the Army. The Secretary of the Army will oversee the operations of the ABCMR. The Secretary will take final action on applications, as appropriate.

(2) The ABCMR Director. The ABCMR Director will manage the ABCMR's day-to-day operations.

(3) The chair of an ABCMR panel. The chair of a given ABCMR panel will preside over the panel, conduct a hearing, maintain order, ensure the applicant receives a full and fair opportunity to be heard, and certify the written record of proceedings in pro forma and formal hearings as being true and correct.

(4) The ABCMR members. The ABCMR members will—

(i) Review all applications that are properly before them to determine the existence of error or injustice.

(ii) If persuaded that material error or injustice exists, and that sufficient evidence exists on the record, direct or recommend changes in military records to correct the error or injustice.

(iii) Recommend a hearing when appropriate in the interest of justice.

(iv) Deny applications when the alleged error or injustice is not adequately supported by the evidence, and when a hearing is not deemed proper.

(v) Deny applications when the application is not filed within prescribed time limits and when it is not in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to file in a timely manner.

(5) The director of an Army records holding agency. The director of an Army records holding agency will—

(i) Take appropriate action on routine issues that may be administratively corrected under authority inherent in the custodian of the records and that do not require ABCMR action.

(ii) Furnish all requested Army military records to the ABCMR.

(iii) Request additional information from the applicant, if needed, to assist the ABCMR in conducting a full and fair review of the matter.

(iv) Take corrective action directed by the ABCMR or the Secretary of the Army.

(v) Inform the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), when appropriate; the applicant; applicant's counsel, if any; and interested Members of Congress, if any, after a correction is complete.

(vi) Return original records of the soldier or former soldier obtained from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

(6) The commanders of Army Staff agencies and commands. The commanders of Army Staff agencies and commands will—

(i) Furnish advisory opinions on matters within their areas of expertise upon request of the ABCMR, in a timely manner.

(ii) Obtain additional information or documentation as needed before providing the opinions to the ABCMR.

(iii) Provide records, investigations, information, and documentation upon request of the ABCMR.

(iv) Provide additional assistance upon request of the ABCMR.

(v) Take corrective action directed by the ABCMR or the Secretary of the Army.

(7) The Director, Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS). At the request of the ABCMR staff, the Director, DFAS, will—

(i) Furnish advisory opinions on matters within the DFAS area of expertise upon request.

(ii) Obtain additional information or documentation as needed before providing the opinions.

(iii) Provide financial records upon request.

(iv) On behalf of the Army, settle claims that are based on ABCMR final actions.

(v) Report quarterly to the ABCMR Director on the monies expended as a result of ABCMR action and the names of the payees.

(c) ABCMR establishment and functions—(1) ABCMR establishment. The ABCMR operates pursuant to law (10 U.S.C. 1552) within the Office of the Secretary of the Army. The ABCMR consists of civilians regularly employed in the executive part of the Department of the Army (DA) who are appointed by the Secretary of the Army and serve on the ABCMR as an additional duty. Three members constitute a quorum.

(2) ABCMR functions. (i) The ABCMR considers individual applications that are properly brought before it. In appropriate cases, it directs or recommends correction of military records to remove an error or injustice.

(ii) When an applicant has suffered reprisal under the Military Whistleblower Protection Act 10 U.S.C. 1034 and Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 7050.6, the ABCMR may recommend to the Secretary of the Army that disciplinary or administrative action be taken against any Army official who committed an act of reprisal against the applicant.

(iii) The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record. It is not an investigative body. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing (sometimes referred to as an evidentiary hearing or an administrative hearing in 10 U.S.C. 1034 and DODD 7050.6) or request additional evidence or opinions.

(d) Application procedures—(1) Who may apply. (i) The ABCMR's jurisdiction under 10 U.S.C. 1552 extends to any military record of the DA. It is the nature of the record and the status of the applicant that define the ABCMR's jurisdiction.

(ii) Usually applicants are soldiers or former soldiers of the Active Army, the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), and in certain cases, the Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) and other military and civilian individuals affected by an Army military record. Requests are personal to the applicant and relate to military records. Requests are submitted on DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of 10 U.S.C. 1552). Soldiers need not submit applications through their chain of command.

(iii) An applicant with a proper interest may request correction of another person's military records when that person is incapable of acting on his or her own behalf, missing, or deceased. Depending on the circumstances, a child, spouse, parent or other close relative, heir, or legal representative (such as a guardian or executor) of the soldier or former soldier may be able to demonstrate a proper interest. Applicants must send proof of proper interest with the application when requesting correction of another person's military records.

(2) Time limits. Applicants must file an application within 3 years after an alleged error or injustice is discovered or reasonably should have been discovered. The ABCMR may deny an untimely application. The ABCMR may excuse untimely filing in the interest of justice.

(3) Administrative remedies. The ABCMR will not consider an application until the applicant has exhausted all administrative remedies to correct the alleged error or injustice.

(4) Stay of other proceedings. Applying to the ABCMR does not stay other proceedings.

(5) Counsel. (i) Applicants may be represented by counsel, at their own expense.

(ii) See DODD 7050.6 for provisions for counsel in cases processed under 10 U.S.C. 1034.

(e) Actions by the ABCMR Director and staff—(1) Criteria. The ABCMR staff will review each application to determine if it meets the criteria for consideration by the ABCMR. The application may be returned without action if—

(i) The applicant fails to complete and sign the application.

(ii) The applicant has not exhausted all other administrative remedies.

(iii) The ABCMR does not have jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.

(iv) No new evidence was submitted with a request for reconsideration.

(2) Burden of proof. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

(3) ABCMR consideration. (i) A panel consisting of at least three ABCMR members will consider each application that is properly brought before it. One panel member will serve as the chair.

(ii) The panel members may consider a case on the merits in executive session or may authorize a hearing.

(iii) Each application will be reviewed to determine—

(A) Whether the preponderance of the evidence shows that an error or injustice exists and—

(1) If so, what relief is appropriate.

(2) If not, deny relief.

(B) Whether to authorize a hearing.

(C) If the application is filed outside the statute of limitations and whether to deny based on untimeliness or to waive the statute in the interest of justice.

(f) Hearings. ABCMR hearings. Applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires.

(g) Disposition of applications—(1) ABCMR decisions. The panel members' majority vote constitutes the action of the ABCMR. The ABCMR's findings, recommendations, and in the case of a denial, the rationale will be in writing.

(2) ABCMR final action. (i) Except as otherwise provided, the ABCMR acts for the Secretary of the Army, and an ABCMR decision is final when it—

(A) Denies any application (except for actions based on reprisals investigated under 10 U.S.C. 1034).

(B) Grants any application in whole or in part without a hearing when—

(1) The relief is as recommended by the proper staff agency in an advisory opinion; and

(2) Is unanimously agreed to by the ABCMR panel; and

(3) Does not involve an appointment or promotion requiring confirmation by the Senate.

(ii) The ABCMR will forward the decisional document to the Secretary of the Army for final decision in any case in which—

(A) A hearing was held.

(B) The facts involve reprisals under the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, confirmed by the DOD Inspector General (DODIG) under 10 U.S.C. 1034 and DODD 7050.6.

(C) The ABCMR recommends relief but is not authorized to act for the Secretary of the Army on the application.

(3) Decision of the Secretary of the Army. (i) The Secretary of the Army may direct such action as he or she deems proper on each case. Cases returned to the Board for further consideration will be accompanied by a brief statement of the reasons for such action. If the Secretary does not accept the ABCMR's recommendation, adopts a minority position, or fashions an action that he or she deems proper and supported by the record, that decision will be in writing and will include a brief statement of the grounds for denial or revision.

(ii) The Secretary of the Army will issue decisions on cases covered by the Military Whistleblower Protection Act (10 U.S.C. 1034 and DODD 7050.6). In cases where the DODIG concluded that there was reprisal, these decisions will be made within 180 days after receipt of the application and the investigative report by the DODIG, the Department of the Army Inspector General (DAIG), or other Inspector General offices. Unless the full relief requested is granted, these applicants will be informed of their right to request review of the decision by the Secretary of Defense.

(4) Reconsideration of ABCMR decision. An applicant may request the ABCMR to reconsider a Board decision under the following circumstances:

(i) If the ABCMR receives the request for reconsideration within 1 year of the ABCMR's original decision and if the ABCMR has not previously reconsidered the matter, the ABCMR staff will review the request to determine if it contains evidence (including, but not limited to, any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted) that was not in the record at the time of the ABCMR's prior consideration. If new evidence has been submitted, the request will be submitted to the ABCMR for its determination of whether the new evidence is sufficient to demonstrate material error or injustice. If no new evidence is found, the ABCMR staff will return the application to the applicant without action.

(ii) If the ABCMR receives a request for reconsideration more than 1 year after the ABCMR's original decision or after the ABCMR has already considered one request for reconsideration, then the case will be returned without action and the applicant will be advised the next remedy is appeal to a court of appropriate jurisdiction.

(h) Claims/Expenses—(1) Authority. (i) The Army, by law, may pay claims for amounts due to applicants as a result of correction of military records.

(ii) The Army may not pay any claim previously compensated by Congress through enactment of a private law.

(iii) The Army may not pay for any benefit to which the applicant might later become entitled under the laws and regulations managed by the VA.

(2) Settlement of claims. (i) The ABCMR will furnish DFAS copies of decisions potentially affecting monetary entitlement or benefits. The DFAS will treat such decisions as claims for payment by or on behalf of the applicant.

(ii) The DFAS will settle claims on the basis of the corrected military record. The DFAS will compute the amount due, if any. The DFAS may require applicants to furnish additional information to establish their status as proper parties to the claim and to aid in deciding amounts due. Earnings received from civilian employment during any period for which active duty pay and allowances are payable will be deducted. The applicant's acceptance of a settlement fully satisfies the claim concerned.

(3) Payment of expenses. The Army may not pay attorney's fees or other expenses incurred by or on behalf of an applicant in connection with an application for correction of military records under 10 U.S.C. 1552.

(i) Miscellaneous provisions—(1) Special standards. (i) Pursuant to the November 27, 1979 order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Giles v. Secretary of the Army (Civil Action No. 77–0904), a former Army soldier is entitled to an honorable discharge if a less than honorable discharge was issued to the soldier on or before November 27, 1979 in an administrative proceeding in which the Army introduced evidence developed by or as a direct or indirect result of compelled urinalysis testing administered for the purpose of identifying drug abusers (either for the purposes of entry into a treatment program or to monitor progress through rehabilitation or follow-up).

(ii) Applicants who believe that they fall within the scope of paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this section should place the term “CATEGORY G” in block 11b of DD Form 149. Such applications should be expeditiously reviewed by a designated official, who will either send the individual an honorable discharge certificate if the individual falls within the scope of paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this section, or forward the application to the Discharge Review Board if the individual does not fall within the scope of paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this section. The action of the designated official will not constitute an action or decision by the ABCMR.

(2) Public access to decisions. (i) After deletion of personal information, a redacted copy of each decision will be indexed by subject and made available for review and copying at a public reading room at Crystal Mall 4, 1941 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia. The index will be in a usable and concise form so as to indicate the topic considered and the reasons for the decision. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), records created on or after November 1, 1996 will be available by electronic means.

(ii) Under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the ABCMR will not furnish to third parties information submitted with or about an application unless specific written authorization is received from the applicant or unless the Board is otherwise authorized by law.

[65 FR 17441, Apr. 3, 2000, as amended at 70 FR 67368, Nov. 7, 2005]

 

source: " http://law.justia.com/cfr/title32/32-3.1.1.6.28.0.16.3.html "

Download document here.

Download document here.

Veteran Court Conspiracy Exposed

 


By Jere Beery

 

 

 

Veterans around the country are being victimized by lawyers who prey on them, their families, and the American tax payers.  Our military ,families have things bad enough, so much worse when one member is constantly deployed, but this story, this one goes so much further than that.  You won’t believe what is going on.

 

It started in Las Vegas with one lawyer and then another one in North Carolina.  Their details are below.  We want you to note who they are and everything they have done to American vets and their families.  One big issue, of course, is veteran’s disability compensation. 

 

By law, traditionally, this money has been designated as not just untaxable but untouchable.  This was Federal Law, this is Federal Law but that law is being rewritten, not officially, but illegally by local courts, not to help families or secure children but to enrich lawyers in illegal schemes that violate every ethical code imagiable.

 

Why is no one doing anything about this?

 

A issue VFVC has been working on for over nine years is the lack of enforcement of the federal protection of veterans’ disability compensation in state civil courts as outlined in 38 USC, § 5301. VFVC volunteers have devoted thousands of hours and traveled tens of thousands of miles investigating the improper categorization of veteran’s disability compensation as “income” by civil court judges and family law attorneys in divorce settlements. According to VFVC National Chairman, Gene D. Simes, VFVC is now ready to release its findings to the American public.

 

VFVC’s nine year investigation has found that a small number of attorneys are directly responsible for the development of a majority of the “illegal” policies and legislation designed to strip retired military and disabled veterans of their retirement pay and disability compensation. In this writing, VFVC is revealing two of the main architects of the scam to steal federal tax dollars while simultaneously stripping our disabled veterans of their earned disability benefits.

 

The two most egregious offenders in this realm are Marshal Willick of Las Vegas, Nevada (practicing exclusively in domestic relations & family law, both trial and appellate) and Mark E. Sullivan of Raleigh, North Carolina .

 

Sullivan has limited his trial practice to family law since 1981 and has been certified by the North Carolina State Bar as a Family Law Specialist since 1989.Both Willick and Sullivan have published handbooks on how to “work the system” when it comes to military/veteran divorces, advising other attorneys how to maximize the amount of retirement and veteran benefits they can obtain for their non-veteran clients.

 

Marshal Willick wrote the first textbook, “Military Retirement Benefits in Divorce: A Lawyer’s Guide to Valuation and Distribution” for the American Bar Association in 1998. Additionally, he has written articles and taught continuing legal education (CLE) seminars on the subject for over 20 years.

 

Mark Sullivan’s book, “The Military Divorce Handbook”, was published in May 2006 by the American Bar Association. Willick and Sullivan have both testified before Congress on the subject, and are considered by many to be “experts” on the issue of military divorces. Both attorneys’ handbooks are available for sale on their respective web sites.

 

In 2007, Willick authored another handbook titles; “HITTING THE JACKPOT IN PENSION CASES: SECRETS TO GETTING THE RETIREMENT SHARE YOUR CLIENT DESERVES”.

 

Apparently, Willick considers going after a veteran’s retirement pay and disability compensation as some sort of gambling game of chance. In this publication Willick divulges what he refers to as “secrets” on how to drain every penny possible from a retired military veteran, including any disability compensation the veteran may be receiving.

 

In his 28,684 word, 52 page booklet, Willick never once mentions the federal laws specifically written to protect a disabled veteran’s disability compensation from slick attorneys such as himself. It is as though 38 USC, § 5301 never existed. How convenient.

 

Gene Simes says Willick and Sullivan have made millions of dollars by distorting the facts surrounding veterans’ military retirement pay, disability compensation, and Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC). They do this by creating the illusion that all of these financial elements are exactly the same and therefore must be treated the same in a divorce. This position is far from the truth. Military retirement pay is administered by the Department of Defense, is taxable income and falls under the jurisdiction of Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA), and is a can of worms all to its self.

 

However, veteran’s disability compensation is administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs and is tax exempt. By combining and addressing these very different programs as though they were one, Willick and Sullivan intentionally ignore the federal protection of veterans’ disability compensation, clearly codified nearly 200 years ago.

 

The following excerpt from the TWENTIETH CONGRESS (1828) support this argument.

 

CHAP. LIII – An Act for the relief of certain surviving officers and soldiers of the army of the revolution. [Approved May 15, 1828]Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the pay allowed by this act shall, under the direction of the Secretary Treasury, be paid to the officer or soldier entitled thereto, or to their authorized attorney, as such places and days as said secretary may direct; and that no foreign officer shall be entitled to said pay, nor shall any officer or soldier receive the same, until he furnish to said secretary satisfactory evidence that he is entitled to the same conformity to the provisions of this act; and the pay allowed by this act shall not, in any way, be transferable or liable to attachment, levy, or seizure, by any legal process whatever, but shall inure wholly to the personal benefit of the officer or soldier entitled to the same by this act. (Source: U.S. Congressional Record / Library of Congress)

 

The current federal law, United States Code, Title 38, section 5301 is very clear about the protection of veteran’s disability compensation, and reads as follows;

 

Payments of benefits due or to become due under any law administered by the Secretary shall not be assignable except to the extent specifically authorized by law, and such payments made to, or on account of a beneficiary shall be exempt from taxation, shall be exempt from the claim of creditors, and shall not be liable to attachment, levy, or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt by the beneficiary.

 

Willick and Sullivan claim that this federal law carries absolutely no relevance in dividing veteran’s disability compensation in state divorce law. They point to a 1987 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Rose v. Rose to support their argument. By the end of this article you will understand why these two attorneys make this claim.

 

Simes says Willick and Sullivan are taking wording out of context in the Rose v. Rose case to bolster their bogus legal argument that disability compensation is not protected in any way. Simes points out that Rose v. Rose was a contempt of court case, not a veteran’s disability distribution case. The only two governmental entities with legal authority regarding who gets disability compensation, how much they get, and when they get it are the U.S. Congress and the Department of Veterans Affairs; not the Supreme Court.

 

Gene Simes also points out that Rose v. Rose involved a retired military person who had waived a portion of his retirement pay in order to receive disability compensation as allowed by federal law. To use the same equation to access the disability compensation of a veteran who is not retired is more often financially devastating, since in many cases the severely disabled veteran has nothing to survive on other than their disability compensation.

 

Attorney Marshal Willick claims that veterans are merely attempting to avoid paying alimony and child support by using an old outdated federal law. Simes says Willick is the one victimizing the veterans, their spouses, and children. Willick hides behind the spouse and child/children while arguing for a large alimony and child support settlement, then takes a large percentage of the award for himself. VFVC/OFFE has acquired a number of documents which illustrate how Willick exploits spouses and children of veterans to line his own pocket.

 

Among these documents are several contingency agreements signed by Willick which grant him 50% of all moneys awarded to his client in alimony and child support. In other words, half of all moneys awarded to a spouse for alimony and child support go directly into Willick’s pocket. VFVC members feel that such contingency agreements reek of ethics violations and are clearly a conflict of interest.

 

Willick and Sullivan are also experts in the use of military service against a veteran when awarding alimony, child support, child custody, and even child visitation. Veterans and active military personnel are losing custody, parental rights, and even visitation based on PTSD ratings and overseas deployments.The twisted logic behind these unjust court rulings is: a PTSD diagnosis implies emotional instability and unpredictable behavior; and an extended tour of duty overseas indicates a lack of contact and involvement in the development of one’s child or children. In fact, in some cases where a parent ‘voluntarily’ and ‘willingly’ joined the military after the birth of a child, they are being accused of intentional abandonment.

 

Unfortunately, all of these factors (& others) are being used against our veterans and military personnel who are going through a divorce and seeking custody of or just visitation with their child or children. Willick and Sullivan swing from one strategy to another depending on the case.

 

From veterans are dangerous individuals unfit to care for their children, to military service is no more dangerous than working on a construction site. In a recent email exchange between Willick and members of VFVC, Willick minimizes and degrades military service by claiming; “Zoo keepers “put their lives on the line,” as do construction workers, cops, fire-fighters, and a host of others. The sort of entitlement mentality exhibited by the military groups is not (usually) seen from any of those workers, and neither would or should be tolerated if it was tried.”

 

Belittling and trivializing the dangers associated with military service is a signature tactic used by Willick and attorneys who subscribe to his way of litigating.Willick goes on to claim; “The source of the disability is simply irrelevant to the distribution of benefits and burdens after such a disability. If there is disability income, it is the separate property of the individual receiving it, meant to compensate for future lost wages – but it is income. Sorting out who should get, and pay, what, among the individual facts of individual cases, is what divorce courts are for.”

 

Gene Simes takes issue with Willick’s ignorance and arrogance. State divorce courts are not authorized to distribute veteran’s disability benefits. The Department of Veterans Affairs, Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration, and U.S. Federal Bankruptcy Court do not define tax-exempt veterans’ disability compensation as “Income”. Marshal Willick is simply making this stuff up as he goes.

 

Another tactic Willick and Sullivan use to get legislators to subscribe to their distorted and perverted attacks on our veterans is political blackmail. Willick, Sullivan and other attorneys threaten to expose state and federal politicians and elected judges as “anti-child support” and “anti-alimony” if they do not agree to support their distorted interpretation of veteran’s benefits.Willick and Sullivan have advised elected officials that such a stance would be political suicide.

 

To date, this strategy has resulted in the defeat of attempts in several states to pass legislation which enforces the absolute protection of veterans’ disability compensation under any legal process whatsoever as intended by federal law. Apparently, most elected politicians are scared off by these threats and won’t stand up for the rights of our disabled veterans.Willick , Sullivan, and others have found a “cash cow” in military retirement and veterans’ disability benefits and they are milking it dry.Many attorneys refer to disability compensation checks as “Golden”, as they are guaranteed to be there on the first of every month.

 

In his seminars, Willick also teaches other attorneys the dirty trick of how to attach their client’s legal fees to the veteran’s court order. At some point in the divorce hearing Willick will submit a motion that his legal fees be attached to the divorce settlement court order. When the judge agrees, the disabled veteran is ordered to pay their ex-spouse’s attorney fees as well as their own. After the judge adds court costs to the ruling, the veteran’s disability compensation ends up in their ex-spouse’s pocket, their ex-spouse’s attorney’s pocket, their own attorney’s pocket, and the court’s pocket. Everyone in the courtroom has a vested interest in the veteran’s disability compensation.

 

Too often, the veteran is left with only a fraction of his/her disability compensation to live on, not even enough to hire another attorney and appeal the ruling. In most cases, not enough to even meet their own living expenses.

 

Willick and Sullivan have even gone as far as to include wording in divorce settlements covering the possibility that a veteran might become disabled and might receive disability compensation in the future. If that occurs, those funds will then be used to increase their ex-spouse’s alimony award.

 

In other words, before a veteran even receives a disability rating or compensation, their ex-spouse has already been awarded a significant portion of this money.According to Gene Simes, these two attorneys are coconspirators and both are directly responsible for infecting state family law legislation and state policies nationwide with their own brand of justice and greed.

 

They both use underhanded techniques and legal deception designed to illegally strip our veterans of their earned retirement, benefits, and entitlements. Simes says, Willick and Sullivan are directly responsible for the increased number of veterans who are homeless, emotionally distraught, and suicidal.

 

These attorneys have violated not only their Code of Conduct, but have dismissed federal laws which are protected under the U.S. Constitution.Simes says, Willick and Sullivan have made a couple of critical miscalculations in their operations. They assume veteran’s disability compensation funds belong only to the veteran, which is false.

 

These funds belong to the American tax payer and are designated exclusively for use by the individual wounded or injured in the line of duty. We are convinced that the tax payers of this country will be outraged when they discover self-serving attorneys are diverting federal tax dollars to ineligible, able body, non-military third parties, and into their own pockets.

 

Another mistake Willick, Sullivan, and other attorneys make is forcing (with the threat of jail) disabled veterans to sign a divorce settlement agreement in which their disability compensation is listed as a funding source for alimony and/or child support.

 

USC, Title 38, section 5301 reads as follows;

 

 (3) (A)This paragraph is intended to clarify that, in any case where a beneficiary entitled to compensation, pension, or dependency and indemnity compensation enters into an agreement with another person under which agreement such other person acquires for consideration the right to receive such benefit by payment of such compensation, pension, or dependency and indemnity compensation, as the case may be, except as provided in subparagraph(B), and including deposit into a joint account from which such other person may make withdrawals, or otherwise, such agreement shall be deemed to be an assignment and is prohibited.

 

In other words, it is a Federal crime for a U.S. disabled veteran to enter into a state court divorce settlement agreement in which the veteran’s disability benefits are to be diverted (paid) to a third party.

 

There are a number of key coconspirators involved in the infestation of state civil courts nationwide, and VFVC plans to expose all of these individuals at the right time. VFVC has acquired a number of documents which reveal the conspiracy to violate the federal protection of veterans’ disability compensation, all of which cannot be displayed in this single article.

 

Gene Simes says, the battle lines have been drawn and he expects this issue to fester and burst wide open during the upcoming 2012 election year.

 

VFVC Inc. is considering a number of options to include filing Class Action Suits, filing formal complaints with the Nevada and North Carolina Bar Associations, filing formal complaints with the American Bar Association, and U.S. Department of Justice (RICO Division).

 

Simes adds that a coalition of veterans organizations is being organized and are preparing to publicly expose and confront everyone involved in this conspiracy to defraud our combat disabled veterans, their spouses, their children, and the American tax payer.

 

Gene Simes and the members of VFVC Inc. are demanding a full investigation and formal public Congressional hearing concerning the continued exploitation of veteran’s benefits in state civil courts nationwide on behalf of all of our nation’s former military personnel, their families, and the American tax payer.

 

Veterans For Veteran Connection, Inc. (VFVC) is a grassroots veteran’s advocacy group devoted to the improvement and protection of benefits, entitlements, and services provided to our country’s former military personnel and their families. VFVC is a registered non-profit bipartisan 501 (C)19 veterans service organization headquartered in Walworth, New York.Operation Firing For Effect (OFFE) is the operational arm of VFVC, Inc. designated to conduct lobbying efforts in Washington DC, as well as rallies and demonstrations promoting legislative and policy changes to ensure and protect veteran’s rights nationwide.

 

Some of the issues VFVC/OFFE have championed over the past 10 years are; mandatory full funding for veterans’ healthcare, preferential job placement for veterans, and several program concepts to address the nation’s increasing number of homeless veterans. VFVC Inc./OFFE also contributed to the development of the Department of Veterans Affairs national suicide hot line headquartered in Canandaigua, New York.

 

For more information, contact Gene Simes at; (315)986-7322

 

Jere Beery VFVC/OFFE National Public Relations This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

source: " http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/12/17/veteran-court-conspiracy-exposed/ "

Merry Christmas: Veterans Court Nominations Postponed Indefinitely

by Benjamin Krause on December 15, 2011

 

Tuesday’s Senate hearing for Veterans Court judicial nominees was postponed indefinitely. In a “politics as usual” move, Senate Republican Richard Burr requested that the hearing for President Obama’s 3 judicial nominees be canceled. His staff stated the Senator was in need for further information before his Christmas vacation. The Democratic majority of the Committed on Veterans Affairs approved Senator Burr’s request with no date set for the hearing.

When asked, neither the Republicans nor Democrats were willing to provide a statement as to what information was needed and on what nominee. Neither party was willing to further comment on when the postponed hearings might be rescheduled beyond stating “some time next year.”

 

The US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) has been waiting since 2008 for President Obama to appoint nominees to its vacant seats. This summer, the President nominated 2 lawyers with extensive experience. In October, the President nominated a third.

 

Despite the copious amount of time to gather information on the nominees, Senator Burr still needs more. In 2009, Senator Burr delayed Tammy Duckworth’s appointment to a VA position for more information “to ensure that veterans have the best representation possible.” While his stated diligence is appreciated, this delay will have a negative impact on veterans waiting for their disability claim to be decided. The current average for a decision is 2 years, but can be as high as 20 years or longer.

 

For years, the Veterans Court has been tremendously backlogged. Currently, the seven sitting judges decide 600 cases per year, each. That means on average, the court decides 16 cases for every day of the workweek. This means 80 cases are decided every week by overworked judges.

 

“These vacancies have been allowed to persist for too long to the detriment of our veterans,” says Patrick Bellon of Veterans for Common Sense. “Any further delay, regardless of the reason, has a negative impact on veterans.”

 

Of the veterans’ claims that are successful, the VA Board of Appeals wrongly denied 70 percent in the first place. With the flood of wrongful denials, it is imperative that the Senate Committee takes immediate action and reschedules the hearing.

 

It appears the hammer has been dropped at the moment with no definitive date set as to when Senator Burr anticipates getting the information he believes he needs.

 

Not much information is publically available online about the nominees, though they to have experienced backgrounds in military and veterans issues.

 

  • Meg Bartley: Senior staff attorney for National Veterans Legal Services Program, a nonprofit that represents veterans against the VA
  • Gloria Shelton: Staff attorney for the VA
  • Coral Pietsch: Retired Brigadier General and US Army Judge Advocate

 

The appointment for which they are nominated lasts 15 years and as such the nominees should be vetted. However, six months seems like more than enough time to gather information. Perhaps the October nomination of General Pietsch is the reason for the delay.

 

Nonetheless, further delays hurt disabled veterans seeking justice and the financial relief they deserve right before Christmas. This pattern of bipartisan obstructionist politics is endemic of politicians on both sides of the isle as of late. It is further evidence of their lack of concern and true support for our country’s veterans.

 

With Veterans Day now one month in the rear view mirror, they must assume disabled veterans can be put back in the box where they belong.

 

If you disagree with the position of Senator Burr on veterans, send him a letter by clicking on his name. This link takes you right to Senator Burr’s contact page.

Ambitious veterans can also send a note to Senator Murray since she chairs the committee. Veterans contact Senator Murray, here.

 

source: " http://www.disabledveterans.org/2011/12/15/merry-christmas-veterans-court-nominations-postponed-indefinitely/ "

TIMOTHY O. HOLMES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

2010-5119

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Decided: September 12, 2011

 


        Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in Case No. 09-CV-208, Chief Judge Emily C. Hewitt.

 

        JAMES Y. BOLAND, Venable LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was TERRY L. ELLING.

 

        RICHARD P. SCHROEDER, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington DC, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were TONY WEST, Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and HAROLD D. LESTER, JR., Assistant Director.

 

Page 2

 

Before PROST, SCHALL, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

 

SCHALL, Circuit Judge.

 

        Timothy O. Holmes appeals the final decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his amended complaint asserting two separate breach of contract claims under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). Holmes v. United States, 92 Fed. Cl. 311 (2010). In his suit, Mr. Holmes alleged that the Department of the Navy breached two settlement agreements relating to Title VIIThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fr1">1 employment discrimination actions that he had brought against the Navy. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss under Rule of the Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC") 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that neither agreement could fairly be interpreted as mandating the payment of money damages for breach by the government. 92 Fed. Cl. at 321. In the alternative, the court ruled that, even if either agreement could fairly be interpreted as mandating money damages for breach, Mr. Holmes's suit was jurisdictionally barred by the six-year statute of limitations set forth at 28 U.S.C. § 2501. Id. The basis for the court's alternative ruling was its determination that Mr. Holmes, who acknowledged that his suit was filed outside the limitations period, was not entitled to the benefit of the accrual suspension rule. Id. at 320.

 

        For the reasons set forth below, we hold that the settlement agreements at issue can fairly be interpreted as mandating the payment of money damages for breach by the government. We also hold that, at least insofar as the allegations in the amended complaint are concerned, Mr. Holmes has demonstrated entitlement to the benefit of the accrual suspension rule. We therefore reverse the

 

Page 3

 

decision of the Court of Federal Claims and remand the case to the court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

 

BACKGROUND
I

 

        The pertinent facts are set forth in the amended complaint ("Am. Compl."). See Samish Indian Nation v. United States, 419 F.3d 1355, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("Like the trial court, this court tests the sufficiency of the complaint as a matter of law, accepting as true all nonconclusory allegations of fact, construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.").

 

        Mr. Holmes is a disabled Navy veteran who was honorably discharged in December of 1990 after twelve years of military service. Am. Compl. ¶ 13. He was subsequently employed by the Navy as a yeoman storekeeper aboard the USNS Mars, a naval supply ship operated by the Military Sealift Command, Pacific Fleet. Id. ¶ 16. Mr. Holmes was terminated from his employment aboard the Mars on July 22, 1994, purportedly for performance reasons. Id. ¶ 20. On October 1, 1994, he filed a complaint with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging that he had been wrongfully terminated due to "false, malicious, and discriminatory accusations about his character and conduct aboard [the] USNS Mars." Id. ¶ 21. In August of 1995, Mr. Holmes and the Navy executed an agreement ("1995 Agreement") to settle the EEOC action. Id. ¶ 23. Under the terms of the 1995 Agreement, the Navy agreed (1) to remove from Mr. Holmes's Official Personnel Folder ("OPF") all adverse performance evaluations pertaining to his employment with the Navy for the period of time he was aboard the Mars; (2) to remove all records of disciplinary action taken against him during his employment;

 

Page 4

 

and (3) to document his OPF to show that he had resigned for personal reasons on July 22, 1994. Id. ¶ 23.

 

        In 1996, after requesting and receiving a copy of his personnel record, Mr. Holmes discovered that the Navy had not complied with its obligation under the 1995 Agreement to expunge adverse information from his OPF. Id. ¶ 24. He thereupon filed a second EEOC complaint alleging breach of the 1995 Agreement. Id. ¶ 25. In November of 1996, Mr. Holmes and the Navy signed an agreement ("1996 Agreement") to settle the second EEOC action. Id. ¶ 26, Ex. A. Under the 1996 Agreement, the Navy agreed (1) to employ Mr. Holmes as a yeoman storekeeper; (2) to provide him transportation to his worksite; and (3) to document his OPF to show that he had resigned on July 22, 1994 for personal reasons. Id. ¶ 27, Ex. A ¶ 2.

 

        In accordance with the 1996 Agreement, the Navy employed Mr. Holmes as a yeoman storekeeper aboard the USNS Guadalupe, beginning in January of 1997. Am. Compl. ¶ 28. After leaving the Guadalupe in July of 1997, Mr. Holmes served aboard the USNS Kilauea as a civilian storekeeper from September of 1997 to August of 1998. Id. ¶¶ 29, 30. Following his departure from the Guadalupe, Mr. Holmes was accused of stealing a government-owned refrigerator from his stateroom and selling it to another crew member. Id. ¶ 29. This accusation led the Navy to suspend Mr. Holmes from his job aboard the Kilauea for fourteen days. Id. ¶ 31. In response, Mr. Holmes filed a third EEOC complaint. In it, he asserted that the allegation of theft and the resulting suspension were the result of "discriminatory and retaliatory conduct against him during his service aboard the USNS Guadalupe." Id. ¶ 32.

 

Page 5

 

        From October of 1998 to April of 1999, while his third EEOC complaint was pending, Mr. Holmes served as a civilian storekeeper aboard the USNS Niagara Falls. Id. ¶ 34. While aboard the Niagara Falls, he was accused of threatening a fellow crew member. As a result, the ship's captain proposed to remove Mr. Holmes from his position. Id. ¶ 35. After being notified of his proposed removal, Mr. Holmes resigned from his position aboard the Niagara Falls. Id. ¶ 36. According to Mr. Holmes, shortly after he resigned, he joined the Seafarers International Union ("SIU") and obtained several temporary contract jobs aboard civilian supply vessels as a storekeeper. Id. ¶ 71.

 

        On December 16, 1999, Mr. Holmes withdrew his third EEOC complaint. Thereafter, on February 22, 2000, he filed a civil action against the Navy in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The suit related to, inter alia, his fourteen-day suspension while aboard the Kilauea. Id. ¶ 37, Compl. for Employment Discrimination on the Basis of Reprisal at 3, Holmes v. Danzig, No. 00-01839 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2000). The case was subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Am. Compl. ¶ 37.

 

        Mr. Holmes and the Navy signed an agreement settling the district court action on April 26, 2001 ("2001 Agreement"). Id. ¶ 38, Ex. B. Under the terms of the 2001 Agreement, the Navy agreed to pay Mr. Holmes $1,000 and to "take the necessary steps, within a reasonable time, to expunge from [Mr. Holmes's] Official Personnel File, the fourteen-day suspension" and "to provide the Marine Index Bureau (MIB) with a neutral reference for [Mr. Holmes]."This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fr2">2 Id., Ex. B ¶¶ 2-4. Pursuant to para-

 

Page 6

 

graph 17 of the agreement and a handwritten note by the Magistrate Judge at the bottom of the agreement, the district court retained jurisdiction for one year "for the purposes of resolving any dispute alleging a breach of [the 2001 A]greement." Id., Ex. B ¶ 17, p.5 ll.20-21; see Holmes, 92 Fed. Cl. at 314, 320-21. On July 11, 2001, the Navy stated in a letter to the Assistant United States Attorney handling the civil action that the Navy had taken the steps necessary to expunge Mr. Holmes's OPF and that it had asked the MIB to correct its records relating to Mr. Holmes. Am. Compl. ¶ 39.

 

        Mr. Holmes requested and received copies of his personnel records from the Navy in May of 2006; the records indicated that the Navy had not documented his record to show that he resigned from the Navy for personal reasons effective July 22, 1994. Id. ¶¶ 41-42. Thereafter, in 2008, Mr. Holmes filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, seeking compensatory damages for the Navy's breach of the 1996 Agreement. Id. ¶ 53. On October 31, 2008, the district court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, stating that Mr. Holmes's breach of contract claim was required to be filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims. Id. ¶ 56; Holmes v. Dep't of Navy, 583 F. Supp. 2d 431, 433-34 (W.D.N.Y. 2008).

 

II

 

        Mr. Holmes filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims on April 9, 2009. In his amended complaint, filed on August 17, 2009, he alleged that the Navy had breached the 1996 Agreement by failing to document his OPF to reflect that he resigned from the Navy in 1994 for personal reasons. He also alleged that the Navy had

 

Page 7

 

breached the agreement by failing to expunge references to the circumstances of his discharge in 1994. He alleged that the Navy had breached the 2001 Agreement by failing to expunge references to the fourteen-day suspension. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 58-59, 61-64. As a result of these breaches, Mr. Holmes alleged, he had been largely unsuccessful in obtaining employment, and had not been able to obtain any employment since 2005. Id. ¶¶ 69-74. For the alleged breaches, Mr. Holmes sought monetary damages. Id. ¶ 75. The government moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1) or, alternately, for failure to state a claim pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(6). The government's jurisdictional motion made two separate arguments: (1) that Mr. Holmes had not established a money-mandating source of law for his claim in order to invoke jurisdiction under the Tucker Act; and (2) that his breach of contract claims were barred by the six-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2501.

 

        The Court of Federal Claims granted the government's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, agreeing with the government that the terms of the 1996 and 2001 Agreements did not support a "fair inference" that Mr. Holmes was entitled to money damages for breach of contract. Holmes, 92 Fed. Cl. at 318 (citing United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465, 472-73 (2003)). As a separate basis for its dismissal of the amended complaint, the court held that Mr. Holmes's suit, which concededly was filed more than six years after the Navy's alleged breaches, was barred by the six-year statute of limitations set forth in § 2501. In that regard, the court ruled that Mr. Holmes was not entitled to the benefit of the accrual suspension rule. Id. at 320-21. Having dismissed the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction, the court did not reach the government's

 

Page 8

 

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

 

        Mr. Holmes appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

 

DISCUSSION
I

 

        We review de novo the Court of Federal Claims's dismissal of a claim for lack of jurisdiction. Adair v. United States, 497 F.3d 1244, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Frazer v. United States, 288 F.3d 1347, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2002). On appeal, Mr. Holmes challenges both (1) the Court of Federal Claims's dismissal of his amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, and (2) its dismissal of his claims as barred by the six-year statute of limitations of 28 U.S.C. § 2501. We address the first issue in Part II and the second issue in Part III.

 

II
A

 

        The Court of Federal Claims derives its jurisdiction from the Tucker Act, which, in relevant part, gives the court "jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). The Tucker Act does not create substantive rights. Rather, it is a jurisdictional provision "that oper-ate[s] to waive sovereign immunity for claims premised on other sources of law (e.g., statutes or contracts)." United States v. Navajo Nation, 129 S. Ct. 1547, 1551 (2009). The other source of law need not explicitly provide that the right or duty it creates is enforceable through a suit

 

Page 9

 

for damages, but it triggers liability only if it "can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government." Id. at 1552 (quoting United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 400 (1976)). This "fair interpretation" rule demands a showing demonstrably lower than the standard for the initial waiver of sovereign immunity. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. at 472. Thus, it is enough that a statute creating a Tucker Act right be reasonably amenable to the reading that it mandates a right of recovery in damages. Id. at 473. While the premise to a Tucker Act claim will not be ''lightly inferred," a fair inference will do. Id. (quoting United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 218 (1983)).

 

        In granting the government's motion to dismiss, the Court of Federal Claims stated that Mr. Holmes had failed to identify "any terms of either the 1996 Agreement or the 2001 Agreement which are reasonably amenable to a reading that supports [his] claim that he is entitled to money damages for defendant's breach." Holmes, 92 Fed. Cl. at 316. The court also stated that Mr. Holmes had not "demonstrated that there is a basis for a 'fair inference' that he is entitled to money damages based on the government's breach." Id. at 318. The court concluded that neither agreement could "be fairly interpreted as mandating compensation." Id. at 321.

 

        Mr. Holmes argues that the Court of Federal Claims's Tucker Act jurisdiction encompasses his claims that the Navy breached the 1996 and 2001 Agreements. He also argues that because the agreements are express contracts, the court erroneously imposed upon him the burden of demonstrating a "fair inference" that the terms of the agreements entitle him to money damages. He maintains that such a burden does not exist when a Tucker Act claim is "founded . . . upon any express or implied contract with the United States," 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), because

 

Page 10

 

money is the presumptive remedy for breach of contract. In the absence of contract terms specifically precluding the recovery of money damages, Mr. Holmes urges, a non-breaching party is entitled to such damages when the government breaches a contract. In short, Mr. Holmes argues that the money-mandating requirement of Tucker Act jurisdiction was satisfied by the very nature of his suit – an action for breach of two Title VII settlement agreements – and that the Court of Federal Claims erred when it required him to identify "separate" money-mandating provisions in the agreements. As he did in the Court of Federal Claims, Mr. Holmes argues in the alternative that, assuming he was required to show that the agreements could fairly be interpreted as contemplating money damages for breach, he carried that burden.

 

        Like Mr. Holmes, the government takes the position that the Tucker Act's grant of jurisdiction for breach of contract claims can encompass such claims arising from Title VII settlement agreements. Appellee's Br. 51 & n.8.This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fr3">3 It argues, however, that the 1996 and 2001 Agreements do not "provide[ ] for damages as a result of a breach" and that therefore, the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction. Appellee's Br. 52 n.8. In making this

 

Page 11

 

argument, the government points to Navajo Nation, Rick's Mushroom Service, Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008), and Khan v. United States, 201 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2000). See Navajo Nation, 129 S. Ct. at 1551-52 ("Neither the Tucker Act nor the Indian Tucker Act creates substantive rights; they are simply jurisdictional provisions that operate to waive sovereign immunity for claims premised on other sources of law (e.g., statutes or contracts). . . . The other source of law need not explicitly provide that the right or duty it creates is enforceable through a suit for damages, but it triggers liability only if it can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government." (citations and internal quotations omitted) (first emphasis added)); Rick's Mushroom, 521 F.3d at 1343-44 ("Rick's does not point to a money-mandating provision that establishes jurisdiction for an implied-in-fact contract under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) . . . ."); Khan, 201 F.3d at 1377-78 ("[T]o invoke jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identify a contractual relationship, constitutional provision, statute, or regulation that provides a substantive right to money damages." (citing Hamlet v. United States, 63 F.3d 1097, 1101 (Fed. Cir. 1995))).

 

        The government contends that the Court of Federal Claims properly examined whether the 1996 and 2001 Agreements were money-mandating, and that it correctly determined that Mr. Holmes had not carried his burden of establishing that the agreements supported a "fair inference" that money damages were payable in event of breach. Appellee's Br. 38-42, 48-50. The government points to the trial court's observation of "the absence of any provision mandating the payment of money for a breach by the government." Holmes, 92 Fed. Cl. at 317. In addition, it urges that both the 1996 Agreement and the 2001 Agreement provided for non-monetary remedies.

 

Page 12

 

Specifically, according to the government, the EEOC regulation at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(a) provided Mr. Holmes with a way to obtain non-monetary relief, namely (1) compliance or (2) reinstatement of the original complaint. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(a). In the case of the 2001 Agreement, the government argues that the agreement is actually a consent decree because it was approved and "so ordered" by the district court in the Northern District of California. Am. Compl. Ex. B p.5 l. 20. The government makes the argument that, as a consent decree, the Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction to enforce its terms.

 

B

 

        Before addressing the money-mandating issue, however, we must resolve the initial jurisdictional question of whether the Court of Federal Claims may exercise its Tucker Act jurisdiction over a claim alleging breach of a Title VII settlement agreement. That is so even though Mr. Holmes and the government do not dispute the point. See John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 457 F.3d 1345, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("As an appellate court, we must be satisfied that the court whose opinion is the subject of our review properly exercised jurisdiction, regardless of whether the parties challenge the lower court's jurisdiction."), aff'd, 552 U.S. 130 (2008).

 

        Our court has not addressed this question, and there is a split of authority on it in the Court of Federal Claims. Some decisions of the Court of Federal Claims have held that the court lacks Tucker Act jurisdiction over claims alleging breach of a Title VII settlement agreement due to the comprehensive statutory scheme established under Title VII, which assigns jurisdiction over discrimination suits to the district courts. See, e.g., Griswold v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 458, 464-65 (2004); Taylor v. United States, 54 Fed. Cl. 423, 425-26 (2002); Mitchell v. United

 

Page 13

 

States, 44 Fed. Cl. 437, 438-39 (1999); Lee v. United States, 33 Fed. Cl. 374, 378-80 (1995); Fausto v. United States, 16 Cl. Ct. 750, 752-54 (1989).This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fr4">4 However, relying on Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994),This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fr5">5 other Court of Federal Claims decisions have found such settlement agreements to fall outside the comprehensive scheme of Title VII and to be within the jurisdiction of the court. See Westover v. United States, 71 Fed. Cl. 635, 638-39 (2006); see also Taylor v. United States, 73 Fed. Cl. 532, 541-45 (2006).

 

        There also appears to be a split of authority among the regional circuits. In Frahm v. United States, 492 F.3d 258 (4th Cir. 2007), the Court of Federal Claims had retransferred to the district court the plaintiff's claim alleging breach of a Title VII settlement agreement. It did so because it concluded that Title VII's "comprehensive and exclusive statutory scheme" precluded its exercise of jurisdiction. Id. at 261. Subsequently, the district court agreed that it had jurisdiction because the plaintiff's claim arose under Title VII, but ultimately denied a motion by the plaintiff for monetary damages. Frahm v. United States, No. 2-CV-00089, 2005 WL 1528421, at *2-3 (W.D. Va. June 23, 2005). The Fourth Circuit affirmed. Frahm, 492 F.3d at 262-63. The D.C Circuit, however, has concluded that the Court of Federal Claims does have Tucker Act jurisdiction over these "straightforward con-

 

Page 14

 

tract dispute[s]." See Greenhill v. Spellings, 482 F.3d 569, 575 (D.C. Cir. 2007); see also Hansson v. Norton, 411 F.3d 231, 232, 237 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ("Because Hansson's claim for attorney's fees neither requires an interpretation of Title VII with respect to her discrimination complaint nor seeks equitable relief under Title VII, but rather seeks reasonable attorney's fees defined by well-established standards, it is a contract claim against the United States for more than $10,000 . . . [and] within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act.")).

 

        We agree with the D.C. Circuit, as well as Court of Federal Claims cases which have reached a similar conclusion, that Tucker Act jurisdiction may be exercised in a suit alleging breach of a Title VII settlement agreement. We do not view Title VII's comprehensive scheme as a bar to the exercise of such jurisdiction. In Massie v. United States, 166 F.3d 1184, 1188-89 (Fed. Cir. 1999), we held that a claim to enforce a contract resolving a dispute arising under the Military Claims Act fell within the Court of Federal Claims's jurisdiction, even though the agency decision out of which the dispute arose was not subject to judicial review. Likewise, in Del-Rio Drilling Programs Inc. v. United States, 146 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1998), we stated that the broad jurisdictional grant set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) does not exempt contract claims that turn on the construction of statutes. We said: "It is often necessary to interpret or apply statutory or common law principles in order to resolve contract claims, but the fact that the resolution of a contract claim may turn on the interpretation of a statute does not deprive the Court of Federal Claims of jurisdiction over that claim." Id. In Del-Rio Drilling Programs, we concluded that the plaintiffs, who sought to recover damages from the government for alleged breach of its duties under

 

Page 15

 

lease contracts, were entitled to sue in the Court of Federal Claims for enforcement of the contracts, even though the court might have to interpret the Tribal Consent Act or other state and federal law in order to resolve the contract claims. Id. at 1367-68. Similarly, although the 1996 and 2001 Agreements arose out of Title VII litigation, Mr. Holmes's suit for breach of contract is just that: a suit to enforce a contract with the government. See generally Kokkonen, 511 U.S. 375. In sum, we agree with the parties and hold that settlement agreements resolving Title VII disputes are not per se beyond the Tucker Act jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims.

 

C

 

        We turn now to the question of whether, in order to invoke the Tucker Act jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims, Mr. Holmes was required to show that the 1996 and 2001 Agreements could support a fair inference that he is entitled to the payment of money damages for breach, or was required to demonstrate that the two agreements could fairly be interpreted that way. As seen, the government contends that Mr. Holmes was required to make such a showing and that he failed to do so. Mr. Holmes argues, however, that because each of the agreements was an express contract with the government, such a showing was not necessary. He maintains that, because money damages are the presumptive remedy for breach of contract, the money-mandating requirement was met by the very nature of his suit - an action for breach of contract. In other words, he contends that he was not burdened with any fair inference or fair interpretation requirement.This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fr6">6 Alternatively, he contends that, assuming

 

Page 16

 

he was required to demonstrate that the agreements could fairly be interpreted as contemplating money damages for breach, he did so.

 

        As seen, the Tucker Act provides in relevant part that the Court of Federal Claims "shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). In Eastport Steamship Corp. v. United States, 372 F.2d 1002 (Ct. Cl. 1967), the Court of Claims drew a distinction between claims arising under the Constitution, a statute, or a regulation and those stemming from a contract. In Eastport, the court stated that "[u]nder Section 1491 what one must always ask is whether the constitutional clause or the legislation which the claimant cites can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the [f]ederal [g]overnment for the damage sustained." 372 F.2d at 1009. The court exempted from the money-mandating requirement claims "which . . . fall under another head of jurisdiction, such as a contract with the United States." Id. at 1008 n.7. The Supreme Court subsequently adopted this distinction in Testan, stating that where a plaintiff does not "rest [its] claim[ ] upon a contract . . . [or] seek the return of money paid by [it] to the [g]overnment[, i]t follows that the asserted entitlement to money damages depends upon whether any federal statute 'can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the [f]ederal [g]overnment for the damages sustained.'" 424 U.S. at 400 (quoting Eastport, 372 F.2d at 1009).

 

Page 17

 

        The Supreme Court has shown continued support for this distinction by excluding contract claims from its subsequent discussion of the money-mandating requirement. See, e.g., White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. at 472 ("It is enough, then, that a statute creating a Tucker Act right be reasonably amenable to the reading that it mandates a right of recovery in damages."); Mitchell, 463 U.S. at 218 ("[F]or claims against the United States 'founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress, or any regulation of an executive department,' 28 U.S.C. § 1491, a court must inquire whether the source of substantive law can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government for the damages sustained."). Generally, this court also has distinguished claims based upon the Constitution, a statute, or a regulation, from claims based upon a contract. See, e.g., Adair, 497 F.3d at 1250 ("When the source of such alleged right is a statute, it can only support jurisdiction if it qualifies . . . as money-mandating." (citing White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. at 473)); Fisher, 402 F.3d at 1173 (en banc) ("When a complaint is filed alleging a Tucker Act claim based upon a Constitutional provision, statute, or regulation, . . . the trial court at the outset shall determine . . . whether the Constitutional provision, statute, or regulation is one that is money-mandating."); Ontario Power Generation, Inc. v. United States, 369 F.3d 1298, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (stating, in a case presenting three types of claims, that "claims alleging the existence of a contract between the plaintiff and the government fall within the Tucker Act's waiver"); Tippett v. United States, 185 F.3d 1250, 1254-55 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("When a contract is not involved, to invoke jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identify a constitutional provision, a statute, or a regulation that provides a substantive right to money damages.").

 

Page 18

 

        In our view, when referencing the money-mandating inquiry for Tucker Act jurisdiction, the cases logically put to one side contract-based claims. To begin with, "[n]ormally contracts do not contain provisions specifying the basis for the award of damages in case of breach . . . ." San Juan City Coll. v. United States, 391 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Moreover, we have stated:

 

[I]n the area of government contracts, as with private agreements, there is a presumption in the civil context that a damages remedy will be available upon the breach of an agreement. Indeed, as a plurality of the Supreme Court noted in United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 839, 116 S.Ct. 2432, 135 L.Ed.2d 964 (1996), "damages are always the default remedy for breach of contract." Id. at 885, 116 S.Ct. 2432 (plurality opinion) (citing, e.g., Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 346, cmt. a (1981)).

 

Sanders v. United States, 252 F.3d 1329, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Thus, when a breach of contract claim is brought in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act, the plaintiff comes armed with the presumption that money damages are available, so that normally no further inquiry is required. We view this presumption as forming the likely basis for the disparate discussion of claims arising under the Constitution, a statute, or a regulation and those stemming from a contract. Put another way, in a contract case, the money-mandating requirement for Tucker Act jurisdiction normally is satisfied by the presumption that money damages are available for breach of contract, with no further inquiry being necessary.

 

Page 19

 

        That is not to say, however, that the existence of a contract always means that Tucker Act jurisdiction exists. A contract expressly disavowing money damages would not give rise to Tucker Act jurisdiction, and we have found Tucker Act jurisdiction lacking in the case of an agreement "entirely concerned with the conduct of the parties in a criminal case." Sanders, 252 F.3d at 1334; see also Kania v. United States, 650 F.2d 264, 268-69 (Ct. Cl. 1981). In short, "[t]he government's consent to suit under the Tucker Act does not extend to every contract." Rick's Mushroom, 521 F.3d at 1343.

 

        In Rick's Mushroom, the plaintiff brought suit in the Court of Federal Claims under the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 601-613 ("CDA"), based upon a cost-share agreement with the Natural Resource Conservation Service ("NRCS"). The Court of Federal Claims held that because the contract between Rick's and the NRCS was a cooperative agreement and not a procurement contract, there was no basis for jurisdiction under the CDA for Rick's breach of contract claim.This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fr7">7 Rick's Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 250, 258 (2007). It therefore dismissed the complaint and Rick's appealed. We affirmed the dismissal. Rick's Mushroom, 521 F.3d at 1348. We agreed with the Court of Federal Claims that Rick's cost-share agreement with the NRCS was not a procurement contract and that therefore the CDA was inapplicable to the agreement and could not provide a basis for jurisdiction under § 1491(a)(2). Id. at 1344. In reaching that conclusion, we noted that Rick's breach of contract claim fell outside of the Tucker Act's jurisdiction because the unique cost-share agreement at issue "d[id] not provide a substantive right to recover money-damages

 

Page 20

 

and Rick's d[id] not point to a money-mandating source of law to establish jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)," and "[i]nstead, Rick's attempt[ed] to rely on the CDA . . . to establish jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(2). Id. at 1343.

 

        We also rejected Rick's attempt to establish jurisdiction based upon an implied-in-fact contract with the NRCS. Id. at 1344. As an adjunct to its CDA claim, Rick's had alleged breach of an implied warranty under United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132 (1918), which sets forth the rule that a contractor bound to build according to government plans and specifications is not responsible for the consequences of defects in those plans and specifications. 76 Fed. Cl. at 259. In holding that it lacked jurisdiction over the alleged implied contract, the Court of Federal Claims determined that even if the CDA included the type of agreement at issue, Rick's had not pleaded the requirements of a valid contract. Id. at 260-61. Agreeing, we stated that Rick's had not pointed to a money-mandating provision that established jurisdiction for an implied-in-fact contract under § 1491(a)(1) and that Rick's could not establish jurisdiction under § 1491(a)(2) because it had not alleged an implied-in-fact contract for procurement of goods or services which would come within the CDA. Rick's Mushroom, 521 F.3d at 1344. In addition, we found jurisdiction lacking for the further reason that "this court may only find an implied-in-fact contract when there is no express contract." Id. at 1344 (citing Trauma Serv. Group v. United States, 104 F.3d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).

 

        We do not agree with Mr. Holmes that the Court of Federal Claims erred in requiring him to demonstrate that the 1996 and 2001 Agreements could fairly be interpreted as contemplating money damages for breach. Both agreements settled Title VII discrimination complaints,

 

Page 21

 

and we readily accept that settlement of a Title VII action involving the government could involve purely non-monetary relief – for example, a transfer from one agency office to another.This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fr8">8 Under these circumstances, in this case, we think it was proper for the court to require a demonstration that the agreements could fairly be interpreted as contemplating money damages in the event of breach. That said, we do agree with Mr. Holmes's alternative argument: that the agreements can fairly be interpreted as contemplating such damages. The Court of Federal Claims therefore has jurisdiction over Mr. Holmes's breach of contract claims.

 

        As noted, under the 1996 Agreement, the Navy agreed to document Mr. Holmes's OPF to show that he had resigned on July 22, 1994 for personal reasons. Am. Compl. ¶ 27, Ex. A ¶ 2. Likewise, under the 2001 Agreement, the Navy agreed to "take the necessary steps, within a reasonable time, to expunge from [Mr. Holmes's] Official Personnel File, the fourteen-day suspension" and "to provide the Marine Index Bureau . . . with a neutral reference for [Mr. Holmes]." Am. Compl. ¶ 38, Ex. B ¶¶ 3-4. We think that, in the context of the two agreements, the purpose of documenting and expunging Mr. Holmes's record clearly was to prevent Mr. Holmes from being denied future employment based on his record as the Navy maintained it prior to the agreements. In short, the agreements inherently relate to monetary compensation through relationship to Mr. Holmes's future employment.

 

Page 22

 

Further, there is no language in the agreements indicating that the parties did not intend for money damages to be available in the event of breach.

 

        Neither do we think that the EEOC regulation to which the government points bars the exercise of Tucker Act jurisdiction. Section 1614.504(a) provides that a complainant alleging breach of an EEOC agreement "shall notify the [Equal Employment Opportunity] Director, in writing, of the alleged noncompliance within 30 days of when the complainant knew or should have known of the alleged noncompliance [and] may request that the terms of settlement agreement be specifically implemented or, alternatively, that the complaint be reinstated for further processing . . . ." 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(a). Without diminishing the force of this regulation, we see no reason for § 1614.504(a) to preclude a suit for money damages in the event of breach that is separate from, or in addition to, the relief the regulation provides.This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fr9">9

 

        Finally, we need not reach the issue of whether the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over consent decrees because we do not agree with the government that the 2001 Agreement is a consent decree. As the First Circuit has explained, the Supreme Court has emphasized three related factors to be used to determine if a court-ordered consent decree exists: (1) the change in legal relationship must be court-ordered, (2) there must be judicial approval of the relief vis-a-vis the merits of the

 

Page 23

 

case, and (3) there must be "judicial oversight and ability to enforce the obligations imposed on the parties." Aronov v. Napolitano, 562 F.3d 84, 90 (1st Cir. 2009) (en banc) (citing Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 604 & n.7 (2001)). As far as the 2001 Agreement is concerned, the Magistrate Judge retained jurisdiction for one year; yet it is clear that the parties' obligations were meant to continue past one year. The 2001 Agreement provides that "Plaintiff hereby agrees never again to apply for employment with Defendant or any agency, activity, or office under the command of Defendant, including but not limited to Military Sealift Command . . . ." Am. Compl. Ex. B ¶ 5. (emphasis added). Thus, the district court did not maintain "judicial oversight and ability to enforce the obligations imposed on the parties" because its jurisdiction lasted only for a year, while obligations under the agreement extended well beyond that period. For at least this reason, the 2001 Agreement is not a consent decree.

 

III
A

 

        As noted, the Court of Federal Claims separately ruled that it lacked jurisdiction because, as Mr. Holmes acknowledged, his complaint was filed more than six years after the Navy allegedly breached the two agreements, and because the court determined that he was not entitled to the benefit of the accrual suspension rule.

 

        Section 2501 states that all claims that otherwise fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims "shall be barred unless the petition thereon is filed within six years after such claim first accrues." 28 U.S.C. § 2501. A cause of action first accrues when all the events have occurred that fix the alleged liability of the government and entitle the claimant to institute an action. Ingrum v.

 

Page 24

 

United States, 560 F.3d 1311, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Generally, "[i]n the case of a breach of a contract, a cause of action accrues when the breach occurs." Alder Terrace, Inc., v. United States, 161 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Mfrs. Aircraft Ass'n v. United States, 77 Ct. Cl. 481, 523 (1933)). Compliance with the statute of limitations is a jurisdictional requirement. John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130, 133-34 (2008).

 

        In the Court of Federal Claims, Mr. Holmes took the position that the government breached the 1996 Agreement by failing to act in or around November 1996 and that it breached the 2001 Agreement by failing to act in or around April 2001.This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fr10">10 See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 58, 61. That meant that, in the case of each agreement, Mr. Holmes's suit, which was first filed on April 9, 2009, was filed outside the six-year limitations period, as it was filed over twelve years after the alleged breach of the 1996 Agreement and approximately eight years after the alleged breach of the 2001 Agreement, or, as the Court of Federal Claims noted, approximately seven years after the conclusion of the one-year period during which the district court retained jurisdiction over the 2001 Agreement. Holmes, 92 Fed. Cl. at 321.

 

        However, as the Court of Federal Claims noted, the "accrual of a claim against the United States is suspended, for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2501, until the claimant knew or should have known that the claim existed." Id. at 319 (quoting Young v. United States, 529 F.3d 1380,

 

Page 25

 

1384 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fr11">11 For the accrual suspension rule to apply, the plaintiff "must either show that the defendant has concealed its acts with the result that plaintiff was unaware of their existence or it must show that its injury was 'inherently unknowable' at the accrual date." Young, 529 F.3d at 1384 (quoting Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (en banc)).This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fr12">12In the Court of Federal Claims, Mr. Holmes acknowledged that, in the case of both the 1996 and the 2001 Agreements, his original complaint was filed more than six years after the government's breach. He argued, though, that he was entitled to the benefit of the accrual suspension rule. Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss First Am. Compl. ("Pl.'s Resp.") at 3-6, Holmes v. United States, No. 09-208C (Fed. Cl. Dec. 2, 2009).

 

        The Court of Federal Claims found that there was no evidence that the Navy had attempted to conceal Mr. Holmes's records or that would support a finding that the Navy's breach of the agreements was "inherently unknowable." Holmes, 92 Fed. Cl. at 319-20. The court determined that Mr. Holmes was on inquiry notice that the 1996 Agreement had been breached as early as 1999, in view of statements in the amended complaint suggest-

 

Page 26

 

ing that he was unsuccessful in obtaining employment as early as 1999 and that he believed this was due to the Navy's breach. Id. at 320 (citing Am. Compl. ¶ 70 and Braude v. United States, 585 F.2d 1049, 1050-52 (Ct. Cl. 1978)). As far as the 2001 Agreement was concerned, the court found that Mr. Holmes was on "inquiry notice" that the 2001 Agreement had been breached no later than April 26, 2002, which marked the end of the one-year period during which the district court retained jurisdiction over the agreement. Id. at 321. As further support for its finding that Mr. Holmes was on "inquiry notice" by no later than 2002, the court pointed to Mr. Holmes's statement in the amended complaint that "[b]etween 2001 and the present, [he] applied for various positions [for] which he was otherwise qualified" yet "[o]n information and belief, [he] was denied or not considered for those positions because of the Navy's breaches of the 1996 and 2001 Agreements." Id. at 320 (quoting Am. Comp. ¶ 40). Having rejected Mr. Holmes's reliance on the accrual suspension rule, the Court of Federal Claims held that Mr. Holmes's breach of contract claims were time-barred. Id. at 321.

 

B

 

        Mr. Holmes does not contend on appeal that the Navy attempted to conceal its alleged breach of the two agreements. Instead, he argues that the breach was "inherently unknowable." He relies on L.S.S. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 695 F.2d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1982), as interpreting the "inherently unknowable" doctrine to "stand[ ] for no more than that the 'statute will not begin to run until [the claimant] learns or reasonably should have learned of his cause of action.'" Id. at 1366 (citing Japanese War Notes Claimants Ass'n v. United States, 373 F.2d 356, 359 (Ct. Cl. 1967)). In L.S.S. Leasing, we held that a lessor's claim against the United States for payment for

 

Page 27

 

the government's overtime use of a leased facility was not partially time-barred by a prior version of 28 U.S.C. § 2501. 695 F.2d at 1366. We concluded that the lessor could recover for overtime use beyond the six-year time frame because we saw "no basis for holding that it would have been reasonable for the lessor to have discovered [that] use at an earlier date," because the government had taken control of after-hours access to the leased facility and was tasked with reporting its overtime use to the lessor. Id. Mr. Holmes contends that this court's decision in L.S.S. Leasing indicates that "application of the statute of limitations periods [sic] is dependent upon the facts of each case, and must be subjected to a test of 'reasonableness.'" Reply Br. 17-20.

 

        Mr. Holmes argues, as he did before the Court of Federal Claims, that he did not actually know that the Navy had breached its obligations under the agreements until he received copies of his OPF from the Navy in 2006. Appellant's Br. 46; Pl.'s Resp. at 4. He contends that, in any event, the earliest time at which he reasonably should have known of the breaches was in 2005, when the SIU and civilian supply vessel employers began conducting background checks and he was no longer offered contract jobs. See Appellant's Br. 46-49, 51-52; Am. Compl. ¶ 72. According to Mr. Holmes, the Court of Federal Claims misconstrued the allegations in the amended complaint to mean that he believed the Navy had breached the agreements at the time he was turned down for jobs, i.e., starting in 1999 due to the Navy's breach of the 1996 Agreement, and in 2001 due to the Navy's breach of the 2001 Agreement. Instead, Mr. Holmes argues, paragraphs 40 and 70 in the amended complaint were merely assertions that he "only now believes that the Navy's breaches caused him damages as early as 1999" and he "did not state or otherwise imply in

 

Page 28

 

the complaint that he believed or suspected at the time that the Navy's breaches were causing him harm." Appellant's Br. 46. Contrary to the court's findings, Mr. Holmes argues that these paragraphs do not indicate that he was on "inquiry notice" prior to 2005 that the 1996 and 2001 Agreements had been breached.This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fr13">13

 

        Mr. Holmes also argues that the fact that he was having some difficulty obtaining employment was not alone enough to put him on inquiry notice of the breaches because applicants for jobs are not offered positions for a multitude of reasons. This is particularly so, he urges, because he was able to secure temporary employment after he resigned from the Navy in 1999, before the SIU began its background checks in 2005. Mr. Holmes contends that the Court of Federal Claims ignored allega-

 

Page 29

 

tions in the amended complaint relating to his periods of temporary employment, as well as allegations that the Navy had complied with some of its obligations under the Agreements, by paying him $1,000 (2001 Agreement) and by employing him (1996 Agreement). In addition, he points to the July 11, 2001 letter alleged in paragraph 39 of the amended complaint. In that letter, Mr. Holmes asserts, the Navy told the Assistant United States Attorney representing the government in the Northern District of California litigation that it had expunged his OPF and asked the MIB to correct its records relating to him. Am. Compl. ¶ 39; see Oral Arg. at 13:38-14:27 & 41:39-42:15, available at http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/2010-5119/all. Mr. Holmes maintains that he was not obligated to continuously monitor whether the Navy had complied with its duties under the agreements, since government officials are presumed to act in good faith. See Savantage Fin. Servs., Inc. v. United States, 595 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ("As an initial matter, government officials are presumed to act in good faith.").

 

        The government responds that the Court of Federal Claims correctly held that Mr. Holmes failed to show that his alleged injury was "inherently unknowable" when his claims accrued. The government argues that the circumstances of this case are analogous to those in our unpublished decision in Roberts v. United States, 312 F. App'x 340, 341-42 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In Roberts, a former service member discovered an injury upon receipt of his military service records almost 40 years after his discharge from the Army. We held that the former service member could not receive the benefit of the accrual suspension rule because he "failed to demonstrate, or even suggest," that the pertinent records were unavailable from the time of his discharge until 2004, and that his injury thus was

 

Page 30

 

"inherently unknowable." Id. at 342. Because Mr. Holmes does not allege that he was denied access to his OPF and because Mr. Holmes had difficulty obtaining employment as early as 1999, the government argues, he has not established that his injury was "inherently unknowable." See also Ingrum, 560 F.3d at 1315 & n.1, 1317 (concluding that the plaintiff's claims were not inherently unknowable because the government's actions on the plaintiff's property were open and notorious, even though the plaintiff's property was located several hundred miles from his residence, poor road conditions kept him from visiting the property using a southern route, and accessing his property from a northern route required seven to nine additional hours of driving). The government argues that L.S.S. Leasing is distinguishable because the contract at issue in that case included a reporting obligation not present in either the 1996 or 2001 Agreements.

 

C

 

        We agree with Mr. Holmes that the "concealed or inherently unknowable" test, which has been used interchangeably with the "knew or should have known" test, Ingrum, 560 F.3d at 1315 n.1, includes an intrinsic reasonableness component. As the Court of Claims explained in Japanese War Notes Claimants Association,

 

An example of [an inherently unknowable injury] would be when defendant delivers the wrong type of fruit tree to plaintiff and the wrong cannot be determined until the tree bears fruit. In this situation the statute will not begin to run until plaintiff learns or reasonably should have learned of his cause of action.

 

73 F.2d at 359 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). As noted, in L.S.S. Leasing, we stated that the "inherently unknowable" test includes a reasonableness component.

 

Page 31

 

695 F.2d at 1366. In L.S.S. Leasing, the court permitted the plaintiff's recovery for the government's overtime use occurring prior to the six-year limitations period, even though it appeared that nothing prevented the plaintiff lessor from discovering the use earlier. We stated that, in view of the fact that the government had taken upon itself the obligation to report overtime usage, the lessor was "relieved" of "the costly burden of monitoring such usage." Id. Accordingly, we saw "no basis for holding that it would have been reasonable for the lessor to have discovered the use at an earlier date." Id. While we have stated that the "concealed or inherently unknowable" formulation of the test for accrual suspension is "more common and more precise" than the "knew or should have known" formulation, Ingrum, 560 F.3d at 1315 n.1, we do not view that statement as eschewing the reasonableness component of the "inherently unknowable" prong of the test. Nothing in Ingrum, or the case it cites on this point, Martinez, can be said to prohibit such a reasonableness inquiry. See Ingrum, 560 F.3d at 1315-16 (finding that the government's use of fill material from the plaintiff's property was not "inherently unknowable," where the use was open and notorious and where the plaintiff was on notice of the possibility that the government would use the fill material); Martinez, 333 F.3d at 1319 (finding that a former service member was barred from proceeding with his suit for unlawful discharge, where he was not unaware of the existence of his injury and the acts giving rise to his claim at the time of the unlawful discharge). Further, in its brief the government itself acknowledges that the "inherently unknowable" test includes a reasonableness component. See Appellee's Br. 17 ("Pursuant to the 'inherently unknowable' prong of the accrual suspension doctrine, in certain narrow circumstances, the statute of limitations 'will not begin to run until plaintiff learns or reasonably should have learned of his cause of

 

Page 32

 

action.'" (quoting Japanese War Notes Claimants Ass'n, 373 F.2d at 359)).

 

D

 

        The 2001 Agreement required the Navy to expunge the fourteen-day suspension from Mr. Holmes's OPF and to provide the MIB with a neutral reference for him. As set forth in the amended complaint, two and a half months after the 2001 Agreement was signed, "the Navy stated in a letter to the Assistant United States Attorney handling the civil action [which led to the 2001 Agreement] that the Navy took the necessary steps to expunge Mr. Holmes's Official Personnel Folder and that the Navy requested corrections to the Marine Index Bureau pertaining to Mr. Holmes." Am. Compl. ¶ 39.This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fr14">14 Thus, according to Mr. Holmes, very shortly after the 2001 Agreement was signed, the Navy, whose officials are presumed to act in good faith, see Savantage Financial Services, 595 F.3d at 1288, affirmatively stated that steps necessary for the Navy to comply with its obligations under the agreement had been taken. In the context of this case, we view the Navy's statement as no less compelling than the overtime reports that the government was required to make to the lessor in L.S.S. Leasing. In addition, although Mr. Holmes alleged that, since 2001,

 

Page 33

 

he had been denied positions for which he was qualified, he also alleged that, after leaving his position with the Navy in 1999, and before the SIU began conducting background checks in 2005, he was able to secure some maritime employment. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 40, 71, 72. Further, because Mr. Holmes received different information from the Navy and Military Sealift Command in response to different requests, see id. ¶¶ 41-42, 49-52, 54-55, it seems that he could have checked his OPF after the Navy's alleged breach and not received any information about the alleged breach, only to check again later and receive such information. In short, given the facts set forth in the amended complaint, including (i) the Navy's contractual promise, (ii) its affirmative statement in the July 2001 letter, and (iii) Mr. Holmes's ability to obtain employment, as well as the presumption that government officials act in good faith, we are not prepared to say that, as far as the "inherently unknowable" standard is concerned, Mr. Holmes acted unreasonably in not double-checking the Navy's contract performance earlier. We thus disagree with the Court of Federal Claims that Mr. Holmes was under a duty to inquire as to whether the Navy had breached the 2001 Agreement.

 

        Mr. Holmes does not allege that the July 2001 letter addressed the Navy's performance under the 1996 Agreement, but the alleged breach of this earlier agreement was in the same stream of events as the alleged breach of the 2001 Agreement. Further, according to the amended complaint, the Navy partially complied with its obligations under the 1996 Agreement by appointing Mr. Holmes as a yeoman storekeeper aboard the USNS Guadalupe between January 1997 and July 1997. Am. Compl. ¶ 28. Moreover, as noted, after leaving the Navy in 1999 Mr. Holmes was able to obtain several temporary contract jobs. Id. ¶ 71.

 

Page 34

 

        It is true that, prior to the execution of the 1996 Agreement, Mr. Holmes had requested and received a copy of his personnel record and had discovered that the Navy had failed to comply with the 1995 Agreement to expunge his record. Id. ¶ 24. We do not believe, however, that either this fact, or Mr. Holmes's unsuccessful attempts to obtain employment after the 1996 Agreement, were sufficient to reasonably put him on inquiry notice of the Navy's alleged breach of the 1996 Agreement. That is because, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Mr. Holmes, it is reasonable to conclude that the Navy's execution of the 1996 Agreement, along with its partial performance thereof, could have provided the basis for a belief on Mr. Holmes's part that the Navy had performed its obligations under the 1996 Agreement. In view of his ability to obtain employment, the Navy's contractual promise, and his knowledge that the Navy had partially performed, we do not believe Mr. Holmes was on "inquiry notice" that the Navy had breached the 1996 Agreement. Relatedly, we do not agree with the Court of Federal Claims's reading of paragraphs 40 and 70 of the amended complaint. We agree with Mr. Holmes that these paragraphs are most properly read as stating Mr. Holmes's state of mind when he filed the amended complaint in 2009, rather than during the period when he alleges the Navy breached the 1996 and 2001 Agreements.

 

        Finally, we think the circumstances of this case serve to distinguish it from both Roberts and Ingrum, upon which the government relies. Neither of those cases involved agreements in which the government promised to take certain action (thereby bringing into play the proposition that government officials are presumed to act in good faith), combined with indications that the promised action had been taken. Rather, those cases involved the situation in which a plaintiff simply failed to request

 

Page 35

 

information from the government when he could have done so (Roberts) and the situation in which the governmental conduct on the plaintiff's property was open and notorious but the plaintiff did not avail himself of the opportunity of discovering it (Ingrum).

 

        We agree with Mr. Holmes that he reasonably should have known of the alleged breach of the 1996 and 2001 Agreements for purposes of the statute of limitations when the SIU began conducting background checks in 2005 and he was no longer being offered contract jobs. Therefore, having demonstrated entitlement to the benefit of the accrual suspension rule, and having filed his complaint within six years of when he reasonably should have known of the alleged breach, Mr. Holmes's suit is not time-barred and thus beyond the Court of Federal Claims's jurisdiction.This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fr15">15

 

CONCLUSION

 

        For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the decision of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing Mr. Holmes's amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The case is remanded to the Court of Federal Claims for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fr16">16

 

Page 36

 

REVERSED and REMANDED
COSTS

 

        Each party shall bear its own costs.

 


--------

 

Notes:

 

        This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fn1">1. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

 

        This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fn2">2. The MIB compiles data pertaining to claims by employees in the maritime industry in an effort to detect fraudulent claims. See Barclay v. Keystone Shipping Co., 128 F. Supp. 2d 237, 241 n.7 (E.D. Pa. 2001).

 

        This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fn3">3. The government states:

 

We recognize that the Court of Federal Claims possesses jurisdiction over a claim where plaintiff can establish a substantive right enforceable against the United States for money damages. It is the Government's position that this includes a Title VII settlement agreement providing for damages as a result of a breach. Thus, simply because a settlement agreement pertains to a Title VII case does not automatically mean that the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction.

 

Appellee's Br. 51.

 

        This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fn4">4. The Federal Courts Administration Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-572, § 902(a), 106 Stat. 4506, 4516, changed the name of the United States Claims Court to the United States Court of Federal Claims. Wilner v. United States, 24 F.3d 1397, 1398 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc).

 

        This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fn5">5. In Kokkonen the Supreme Court distinguished actions based on a settlement agreement from an action under a law whose alleged violation gave rise to the settlement. 511 U.S. at 378-82.

 

        This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fn6">6. The parties do not argue that the "fair inference" articulation of White Mountain alters or differs from the "fair interpretation" articulation, see Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1173-74 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (non-en banc portion), and we view any distinction to be irrelevant in this case.

 

        This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fn7">7. The Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over CDA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(2).

 

        This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fn8">8. Indeed, we note that money damages appear not to be the routine remedy for the breach of a settlement agreement involving an employment dispute. Typically, the employee's remedy is enforcement of the settlement terms or rescission of the settlement agreement and reinstatement of the underlying action. See, e.g., Harris v. Brownlee, 477 F.3d 1043, 1047 (8th Cir. 2007).

 

        This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fn9">9. We acknowledge that at least one other circuit has reached the contrary conclusion. See Frahm, 492 F.3d at 262-63 (affirming the district court's denial of a motion for monetary damages and stating that neither the settlement agreement nor a statute allowed a suit for damages and that § 1614.504(a) provided the exclusive remedy for alleged breach of a Title VII settlement agreement).

 

        This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fn10">10. The 1996 Agreement did not set forth a time frame within which the Navy was required to document Mr. Holmes's OPF to indicate that he had resigned for personal reasons. The 2001 Agreement required the Navy to expunge Mr. Holmes's OPF "within a reasonable time." Am. Compl. Ex. B ¶ 3.

 

        This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fn11">11. As the Court of Federal Claims observed, the accrual suspension rule is distinct from equitable tolling, which the Supreme Court has stated is precluded under 28 U.S.C. § 2501. Holmes, 92 Fed. Cl. at 319 n.9 (citing John R. Sand & Gravel, 552 U.S. at 132-39).

 

        This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fn12">12. Although it is sometimes stated that accrual of a claim against the United States will be suspended until the claimant "knew or should have known" that the claim existed, we have explained that this formulation does not represent a separate test and has been used interchangeably with the "concealed or inherently unknowable" standard. Ingrum, 560 F.3d at 1315 n.1. We have endorsed the latter standard as preferable, however, because it is "both more common and more precise." Id.

 

        This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fn13">13. The paragraphs of the Amended Complaint to which the Court of Federal Claims pointed read as follows:

 

40. Between 2001 and the present, Mr. Holmes applied for various positions which he was otherwise qualified [sic]. On information and belief, Mr. Holmes was denied or not considered for these positions because of the Navy's breaches of the 1996 and 2001 Agreements.
. . .
70. Mr. Holmes has attempted to obtain employment multiple times since 1999, but has largely been unsuccessful because his personnel record retained by the Navy contained unfavorable employment information that discouraged potential employers from hiring him. Moreover, on information and belief, representatives of the Military Sealift Command have given negative and other than "neutral" references to prospective employers.
Am. Compl. ¶¶ 40, 70.

 

        This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fn14">14. As the Court of Federal Claims noted, Mr. Holmes did not attach a copy of this letter to his amended complaint, nor did he argue before the court that the letter should result in some type of tolling of the statute of limitations. Holmes, 92 Fed. Cl. at 321 n.13. However, construing all facts in the amended complaint in Mr. Holmes's favor, as we must, see Samish Indian Nation, 419 F.3d at 1364, we assume that this letter declared what Mr. Holmes alleges: that the Navy stated that it had taken the necessary steps to expunge his OPF and that it had requested that the MIB correct its records pertaining to him. Am. Compl. ¶ 39.

 

        This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fn15">15. Our holding is based solely on the allegations set forth in the amended complaint. After discovery, as Mr. Holmes has acknowledged, the government may be warranted in renewing its motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction due to the statute of limitations, should evidence suggest that, in fact, Mr. Holmes knew or reasonably should have known of the Navy's alleged breach at an earlier date. See Oral Arg. at 44:39-46:03, available at http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/2010-5119/all.

 

        This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E5665#fn16">16. Our holding that the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction does not address whether Mr. Holmes's suit is subject to dismissal on the merits under RCFC 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See e.g., Adair, 497 F.3d at 1251; Fisher, 402 F.3d at 1175-76 (non-en banc portion).

TITLE 18 Section 1091 = Genocide, branding veterans with SPN/SPD Code

 

 

§ 1091. Genocide

(a) Basic Offense.— Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war and with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such—
(1) kills members of that group;
(2) causes serious bodily injury to members of that group;
(3) causes the permanent impairment of the mental faculties of members of the group through drugs, torture, or similar techniques;
(4) subjects the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part;
(5) imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group; or
(6) transfers by force children of the group to another group;
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
(b) Punishment for Basic Offense.— The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) is—
(1) in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1), where death results, by death or imprisonment for life and a fine of not more than $1,000,000, or both; and
(2) a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in any other case.
(c) Incitement Offense.— Whoever directly and publicly incites another to violate subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(d) Attempt and Conspiracy.— Any person who attempts or conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be punished in the same manner as a person who completes the offense.
(e) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the offenses described in subsections (a), (c), and (d) if—
(1) the offense is committed in whole or in part within the United States; or
(2) regardless of where the offense is committed, the alleged offender is—
(A) a national of the United States (as that term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101));
(B) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States (as that term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101));
(C) a stateless person whose habitual residence is in the United States; or
(D) present in the United States.
(f) Nonapplicability of Certain Limitations.— Notwithstanding section 3282, in the case of an offense under this section, an indictment may be found, or information instituted, at any time without limitation.

source: “ http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001091—-000-.html


TITLE 38 Sect. 5100, Duty to Asst.

 

 

Download document here.

 


TITLE 18, Sec. 2071,  removal, spoliation, destruction of documents.

§ 2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

 

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

source: " http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002071----000-.html "

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 9 = GAO REPORT, SPN/SPD CODES

Download document here.

 

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 10 DOD Memo SPN Codes

This is a DOD Memorandum regarding their opinion about privacy issues against veterans.

 

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 11, Second Staff Study on SPN Codes – Stigmatize

This is the second staff study done by DOD regarding SPN/SPD codes.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 13 14 and 17 = SPN/SPD CODES

 

 

Download documents here.

Wilhelmus v. Geren ARMY BCMR 07-13-11

 

 

Download document here.

V.A. Questions about SPN and SPD codes.

 

 

Download document here.

USAF BCMR Reply 4 questions

 

 

Download page one here.

Download page two here.

USAF ACKNOWLEDGE LETTER NOV. 7, 2011

 

 

View letter dated Nov. 7th, 2011 here.

USAF FOIPA CLARIFICATION, Legal Precedent, SPN CODES

Download document here.