1The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-2985

___________

Theodore W. Parsons, Jr., *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

United States Air Force, Secretary of *

the Air Force, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: June 7, 2000

 Filed: June 12, 2000

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Theodore Parsons, Jr., appeals the District Court’s1 order dismissing without

prejudice for lack of jurisdiction his 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (1994 & Supp. IV 1998) action,

in which he sought correction of his military records, and declining transfer to the Court

of Federal Claims. Parsons argues the District Court erred by failing to view the facts

in a light most favorable to him, by refusing to exercise jurisdiction over his equitable

claims, and by declining to transfer his action. After carefully reviewing the record, see
-2-

Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724, 730 (8th Cir. 1990) (appellate court must

determine whether district court’s application of law is correct and its findings on

disputed factual issues are clearly erroneous), we affirm.

We disagree with Parsons that the facts should have been viewed in a light most

favorable to him: defendant’s jurisdictional challenge was a factual attack under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), and the District Court was thus free to weigh

evidence and determine the existence of its power to hear the case, and no presumptive

truthfulness attached to Parsons’s allegations. See id. at 729-30 & n.6. The District

Court correctly looked beyond the face of Parsons’s complaint to determine the true

nature of his suit, see Sellers v. Brown, 633 F.2d 106, 108 (8th Cir. 1980) (per curiam),

and correctly concluded that jurisdiction was exclusively in the Court of Federal

Claims. If Parsons had succeeded in having his administrative dismissal rescinded and

being reinstated to the rolls of the Air Force, he would have been entitled to more than

$10,000, see Mullally v. United States, 95 F.3d 12, 14 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)

(claims against United States exceeding $10,000 based upon Constitution, federal

statute, regulation, or contract are in exclusive jurisdiction of Court of Federal Claims);

and Parsons did not show his reinstatement had value apart from determining the

government’s liability for his retirement benefits, cf. State of Minnesota v. Heckler, 718

F.2d 852, 858 (8th Cir. 1983) (if equitable relief claimant seeks has significant

prospective effect or value apart from merely determining monetary liability of

government, it is paramount and district court may assume jurisdiction over

nonmonetary claims).

The District Court also properly determined that it was not in the interest of

justice to transfer Parsons’s case to the Court of Federal Claims, see Mullally, 95 F.3d

at 14, as his action was time-barred in that court, see D’Andrea v. United States, 27

Fed. Cl. 612, 614, aff’d, 6 F.3d 786 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 

Accordingly, we affirm.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.