NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

05-5180 HARRY P. TEICHMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

___________________________ DECIDED: January 11, 2006

___________________________ Before GAJARSA, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. Harry P. Teichman seeks review of the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Court of Claims”), dismissi ng his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint was filed out side the pertinent statut e of limitations. We affirm

. BACKGROUND In 1988, Teichman entered the United States Naval Academy. The Academy maintained a computer progr am to document student absences. In April 1992, Teichman, without authoriz ation, accessed this program twic e: first to delete some of his absences, then to reenter some of the absences he had deleted. After Teichman’s company officer discovered discrepancie s in the documented absences, Teichman admitted to accessing t he computer program. Teichman’s company officer thenaccused Teichman of committing the honor o ffense of lying. An honor board convened and concluded that Teichman had committed an honor offense. On August 19, 1992, after a series of internal proceedings and under the direction of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Teichman was separated from the Academy and ordered to repay the government for his tuition. Thereafter, Teichman remitted $36,385.70, repr esenting a compromise offer by the government, to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. The letter and check submitted by Teichman is dated November 10, 1993. 1 On August 3, 1995, Teic hman petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (“BCNR”) to either reinstate him to the Academy or to award him his degree and return the $36,385.70. Teichman also raised numerous due process issues concerning the honor board proceeding. The BCNR found no error in the honor board’s proceedings; however, two of the three B CNR panel members reco mmended that “the record [ ] be corrected to show that [Tei chman] was not requir ed to reimburse the government for the cost of his education.” Gov’t App. at 35. The Assistant Secretary declined to adopt this recommendation and denied all relief on July 8, 1998. On July 8, 2004, Teichman filed a compla int in the Court of Claims alleging (1) wrongful separation and requesti ng reinstatement, money damages, or other relief and

1 The Court of Claims misst ates the date that Teichm an remitted $36,385.70 to the government as November 12, 2003. The Government’s brief repeats this error. However, the Government’s appendix indicate s that Teichman’s check and letter were dated November 10, 1993. Moreover, in it s opinion dated February 4, 1998, the Board for Corrections of Naval Records stated t hat the “Petitioner has reimbursed the government over $36,000 of educ ational expenses in full settlement of a compromise offer,” thus demonstrating that the BCNR concluded that the pay ment was made before February 4, 1998. Gov’t App. at 29.

05-5180 2(2) that the Assistant Secret ary acted arbitrarily and violat ed Teichman’s constitutional rights by not adopting the BCNR’s majority recommendation regarding the tuition reimbursement. The Court of Claims dism issed Teichman’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction, holding that (1) the six-year st atute of limitations for wrongful discharge began to run from the August 19, 1992, date of discharge, and (2) the court has no jurisdiction over claims that do not s upport a claim for money damages against the United States. This appeal fo llowed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). DISCUSSION We review the Court of Claims’ juri sdictional determination without deference. Fisher v. United States , 402 F.3d 1167, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2005). On appeal, Teichman concedes that the first count of his comp laint, seeking reinst atement and monetary damages, was properly dismissed as filed outside the six-year statute of limitations. 2 The Court of Claims also properly dismi ssed count two of Teichman’s complaint, seeking review of the Assistant Secretary’ s decision, albeit for the wrong reason. Teichman essentially seeks to recover t he tuition reimbursement that he remitted to the government. This cause of acti on began to accrue on the day he reimbursed the government in November of 1993, not, as the Court of Claims held, the date he was discharged from the Academy. See Martinez v. United States , 333 F.3d 1295, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“[I]n order for [plaintiff’s] claim to be within the Tucker Act jurisdiction of the Court of F ederal Claims, it had to be for money owing to him . . . .”)

2 “Every claim of which the United States Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction shall be barred unless the petition thereon is filed within six years after such claim first accrues.” 28 U.S.C. § 2501 (2000). 05-5180 3(emphasis added). Therefore, Teichman had six years from the date of his reimbursement to file a claim seeking reco very of the reimburse ment. Teichman filed his complaint in the Court of Claims on July 8, 2004, well outside the six-year statute of limitations. Teichman argues that the A ssistant Secretary’s decision in refusing to adopt the BCNR’s recommendation is an independent basis for liability and ther efore started its own six-year limitations period. In Martinez we held that a correction board’s decision does not give rise to a new cause of action. Id. at 1311-12. Martinez applies to the Assistant Secretary’s determination just as it does to the BCNR’s decision. Therefore, the Assistant Secretary’s rejection of the BCNR’s recommendation in this case does not initiate a new limitations period with respec t to Teichman’s claim for recovery of the tuition reimbursement. Insofar as Teichman asserts that the A ssistant Secretary’s decision violated his constitutional rights in some way other t han by denying him recovery of the tuition reimbursement, the Court of Claims correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction. The Court of Claims has no jurisdiction over cons titutional violations which do not support a claim for money damages. See, e.g. , Fisher , 402 F.3d at 1173; LeBlanc v. United States , 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995). We have considered Teichman’s other arguments and conclude that they have no merit.

05-5180 4CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Court of Claims is affirmed.

COSTS: No costs.

05-5180 5