Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-01453/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-01453-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Paul S. Weber, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Department of Defense, Washington, D.C.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 04-1453-PCT-MHM

ORDER

This Court previously set aside the Judgment entered in this case and permitted

Plaintiff pro se to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 9). Plaintiff thereafter filed a document

that has been construed on the docket as an amended complaint (Doc. 11) in which Plaintiff

alleges that he served in the Army of the United States but did not receive his pay checks

during the time he was stationed in Vietnam. Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to eight

years of active duty pay for a "One Star General and Pilot." 

On May 20, 2005, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint

based on several grounds, including lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 12). The

docket shows that on June 16, 2005, Plaintiff filed a "letter" with the Court. (Doc. 13). The

Court will construe this "letter" as a response to Defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff

reiterates in this letter/response that he is seeking checks, that is, back pay, earned while

serving in Vietnam, and/or disability benefits.

Case 3:04-cv-01453-MHM Document 15 Filed 03/31/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Defendant points out in its motion to dismiss Plaintiff has not set forth in his amended

complaint any dates during which he allegedly served in the military in Vietnam. Defendant

states that for disability benefit purposes the United States recognizes its involvement in the

Vietnam War as between February 28, 1961 and May 7, 1975. (Doc. 12 - motion to dismiss

at p. 2, n.3). Defendant contends that, under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a), every civil action

commenced against the United States is subject to a six-year limitations period which runs

from the date that the right of action first accrues. Assuming that the Vietnam War ended

in 1975, Plaintiff's claim accrued over 23 years ago and is barred by the statute of limitations.

The statute of limitations is jurisdictional and must be strictly construed to avoid the

prosecution of stale claims. Soriano v. United States, 352 U.S. 270, 273-74 (1957). 

Defendant additionally contends that Plaintiff has available administrative remedies

which he has failed to exhaust. Ordinarily, exhaustion of administrative remedies before

reviewing military personnel decisions is required by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit. See, Cooney v. Dalton, 877 F. Supp. 508, 511 (D. Hawaii 1995); Schowengerdt v.

General Dynamics Corp., 823 F.2d 1328, 1341 (9th Cir. 1987)(citing Muhammad v. Secretary

of the Army, 770 F.2d 1494, 1495 (9th Cir.1985)(strict application of the exhaustion

requirement in military personnel cases maintains the balance between military authority and

the federal courts)). The Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) has

statutory authority to "correct any [Army] record" in order to "remove error or injustice." 10

U.S.C. § 1552(a). This includes the authority to consider claims based on "constitutional,

statutory and/or regulatory violations." 32 C.F.R. § 581.3(c)(5)(v). The ABCMR's decisions

are subject to review under an arbitrary and capricious standard. Chappell v. Wallace, 462

U.S. 296, 303 (1983). Defendant has submitted the declaration of Carl W.S. Chun, the

Director of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, who states that the Secretary

of the Army, or his designee, acting upon the ABCMR, can address Plaintiff's request for

relief and, if appropriate, can recommend to the Secretary of the Army that relief be granted.

Mr. Chun further states that a search of ABCMR records reveals that no claim has been filed

by Plaintiff. Moreover, while an application for relief is subject to a three-year limitations

Case 3:04-cv-01453-MHM Document 15 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

period, the limitations period is subject to waiver by the ABCMR if it is determined that such

waiver is in the best interest of justice. Defendant contends that Plaintiff should first be

required to exhaust his administrative remedies with the ABCMR so that the agency is

afforded an opportunity "to develop the facts, to apply the law in which they are particularly

expert, and to correct [its] own errors." Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U.S. 738, 756

(1974). The ABCMR can determine the existence of error or injustice in Plaintiff's records

and, if appropriate, recommend corrections to the Secretary of the Army. 

Plaintiff has not set forth the dates of his alleged military service and it therefore is

not clear that his claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Nonetheless, the

Court has determined that Plaintiff's cause and action should be dismissed because Plaintiff

has not exhausted his administrative remedies which appear to remain available. 

Defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint is granted. Dismissal is

without prejudice so Plaintiff may pursue available administrative remedies.

In the April 11, 2005 Order reopening this case, the Court ordered that "Plaintiff is

directed to file all papers and documents relevant to this case in the Clerk's Office so they can

be filed of record and docketed in the case file. Any future letters that Plaintiff sends to the

Court ex parte shall be returned to Plaintiff." Plaintiff has not complied with the Court's

Order and has forwarded correspondence directly to the Court. The Clerk shall to return to

Plaintiff the correspondence (letters/documents dated August 11, 2005 and August 12, 2005

and envelope postmarked September 22, 2005) attached to this Order. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint

(Doc. 12) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's first amended complaint (Doc. 11) is

dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall to return to Plaintiff the

items of correspondence (letters/documents dated August 11, 2005 and August 12, 2005 and

envelope postmarked September 22, 2005).

Case 3:04-cv-01453-MHM Document 15 Filed 03/31/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

DATED this 22nd day of March, 2006.

 

 

Case 3:04-cv-01453-MHM Document 15 Filed 03/31/06 Page 4 of 4