UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 99-2030
R OB E R T R. D A V EN PO RT , A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. ANTHONY J. P RI NCI PI , S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE
.

On Ap pe a l f ro m th e B oa

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls
(De cided De cembe r 17, 2002 )

Ro be rt R . D av e np or t, p ro se . John H. Thompson , A c tin g Ge ne ra l Co un se l; Ro n G arv in , Assistant Gene ral Couns el; and Carolyn F. W

ashington , Deputy

Assistant Gener al Counsel, all of Washington, D.C., were on the pleading s for the a

ppellee.
Be fore FARL EY, STEI

NB ERG, and GREENE, Judges

. STEI NB ERG, Judge : The pro se appellant seeks review of a September 14, 1999, Boa

rd of Veter ans' Appea ls (Boa

rd or B VA ) d ec ision that denied Depa rtment of Ve tera

ns Affa irs (VA)

e du c a tio na l a ssi sta

nc e be ne fi ts [h e re ina ft e r " e du c a tio n b e ne fi ts" ] und e r c ha pte r 1 60 6 o f t itl e 10 , U .S. Code, for pe riods of enlistment afte r Nove mber 30, 1997. Record (R.) at 3. The appellant filed a brief, a nd the Secr etar

y filed a motion for summ ary aff irmance . The Court orde red suppleme ntary briefingin October

2001, to which both parties have responded. This appeal is timely , and the Court has jurisdiction pur suant to 38 U .S.C. §§ 7252(a) and 7266( a). F or the re asons that follow, the Court will affirm the B oard de cision.

I. Re le va ntBac kgr ound Th e ve te ra

n s e rv e d h on or a

bly on a c tiv e du ty

in th e U.S . N a vy

fr om N ov e mbe r 1 97 2 unti l J anuar y 1977, including se rvice in V i et n am
. R . at 9, 11. Afte r his discharg e, he r ece ived VA2

education benef

its pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 3451, et seq. , to a tte nd law s c ho ol f

ro m Jan ua ry 19 77 to J une 1979, to take a

bar- examination review c ourse f rom J une throug h J uly

197 9 , an d to attend business school from September 1982 to May

1984. Se e Da v e np or t v . B ro wn ( Dave nport I) , 7 Vet.App. 476, 477 ( 1995) (located at R. at 32)

. By this point, the veter an had used 45 months of the maxim um of 48 months a llotted f or education be nefits under chapte r 34 of title 38, U.S. Code. Ib id .; R. at 4; Appellant' s Br ief (B r.) at 2; Secre tary ' s Motion (Mot.) at 3. I n J une 1991, he e ntere d the U.S. Army

Reserve s and obligated himself to six y ear s of service , including se rvice in the Persian Gulf W ar. R. at 26. I n September 1992, he signe d a for m entitled "Selec ted Reser ve Educ ational As sis tanc e Pr og ra

m ( GI B ill ) N oti c e of

B a sic El ig ibi lity " , w hic h p ro vid e d in pe rt ine nt p art : 2. NOTI CE OF B ASI C EL I GI BI L I TY Y o u me e t th e e li g ib il it

y c r it e r ia f

o r th e
. . . p r o g r a m
. . . as fo llo ws : a. Dur ing the period of July 1, 1985[,] throu gh Ju n e 30, 1988, y ou have ag ree d to serve six y ear s in the S elec ted R eser ve. . . .

. . . . 3. I NEL I GI BI L I TY Members of

the Selecte d Reserve who h a ve compl eted a course of instru ction required for a bachelor's degree or have t he e qu iv a le n t e v id e n c e o f c o mp le ti o n o f s tu dy . . . are in elig ible for benef its described in Para g raph 5.

. . . . 5. MONTHLY ENTI TL EMENTS You ar e entitled to a monthly benef it in pursuit of a prog ram of educ ation leading u

p to a n undergradu ate degre e or the equivalent e vidence of completion o f study as def ined by the [Veterans' ] Admi nistration . . . . R. at 28 (emphasis adde d). Pursuant to that Selective Reser ve GI Bill prog ram, the veter an applied in Aug ust 1995 for VAe du c a tio n b e ne fi ts f

or a c e rt if icate pro g ra

m in pr of e ssi on a l sc re e nw ri tin g . R. a t 51 -5 3. Th is application wa s approve d (R. at 56-57, 67-68, 72-73), and the veter an rec eived more than 26 months of VA e ducation bene fits until VA terminated those bene fits as of Nove mber 30, 1997. R. a t 77. Af te r t he vete ra n in qu ir e d a

bo ut t he te rm inatio n ( R. a

t 75 ), VAre sp on de d th a t he ha d p re vio us ly3

us e d 4 5 mo nth s o f e nti tle me nts un der th e c ha pte r 3 4 b e ne fi ts p ro g ra

m and tha t, b e c a us e his

e nti tle me nt w a s lim ite d to " 48 mon ths of c omb ine d e du c a tio n[] be ne fi ts" , h e wa s " on ly e nti tle d to 3 mo nth s o f [c ]ha

pte r 1 06 be ne fi ts" . R. a t 79 . A lth ou g h V A d e te rm ine d th a t he ha d b e e n o ve rp a id benef its, his not ice letter indicated that he would not be re quired to " repa y this debt" be cause the

e rr or wa s n ot h is. R. at 79 ; see R. a t 8 1

. F o r r e a s o n s th a t ar e n o t c le ar f r o m th e re cord on a

ppeal (ROA), the veter an wa s later a sked to repa y th i s d eb t

. R

. at 149. The ve tera n filed a c laim for waiver of the debt and for additional benef its unde r chapte r 106 (cur

rently codified at chapter

1606) of title 10, U.S. Code ( see R. at 153); waiver was g rante d in September 1998 (R. at 158, 160), and the veter an appe aled to the Board the denial of e ducation bene fits under c hapter 106 for pe riods of enrollment af

ter Nove mber 30, 1997. I n the B VA dec ision here on a ppeal, the B oard de nied cha pter 1606 e ducation bene fits to the veter an for

periods of e nrollment after November

30, 1997. R. at 3. The Boa rd re asoned that it was constraine d by

the law limiting to 4 8 m o n ths "the a g g reg ate pe riod for w hich an individual may

rec ei v e b e n e f

it s u n d e r [c ]h a p te r 1 6 0 6 , [t ]i tl e 1 0 , [U

. S. ] C o d e , an d [c ]h a p te r 3 4 , [t ]i tl e 3 8 , [U.S.] Code" . R. at 4 (citing 38 U.S.C. § 3695(a)). The Boa rd deter mined that the veter an had r ece ived, betwee n 1995 and 1997, 23 months of education benef its to which he w as not entitled and that he could not re ce i ve, under

the law, a

ny additional education benefits. R. at 4. I n response to the veter an' s contra ctual arg uments, the Board asserted that "V A i s not a party to the contract t he vete ran signe d . . . , and[,] there fore , it has no contrac tual duties related t here to". R. at 4. I n response to the veter an' s argument t h at h e had rec eived notice from VA that he had " 9 months and 21 day s of

rema ining e ntitlement", the B oard concluded that even if that statement wer e true , the B oard is " not aut ho ri z ed t o aw ard p ay

men t o f ben efi ts whe re s tat ut ory requ ir eme nt s fo r su ch ben efi ts are no t m et". R

. at 5 (c i t i n g Ha rv e

yv . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 416, 424 (1994), a nd Sh ie lds v . B ro wn , 8 Vet.App. 346, 351 ( 1 9 9 5 ) )

. I n r e s p o n s e to th e v e te r an ' s ar g u me n t th a t 3 8 C. F

. R. § 2 1

. 4 0 2 0 ( b ) ( 1 9 9 8 ) permitted pay ment of the be nefits that he soug ht, the Boa rd dete rm i n ed that VA had not a war ded extended benef its under this discretionar

y provision and that, even if such bene fits were proper , that provision would not permit a " full 36 months of [c] hapter 1606 benef its". R. at 5. Finally , the B oard r ejec ted the veteran' s argument that the 48-mont h limit ation was not intended to apply to veter ans " who have multipl e per iods of non[] continuous service , in dif fer ent service branc hes, during differ ent per iods4

of wa r" by ref err ing ag ain t o the s tatute and stating that there is "no leg al basis for a n awa rd of a ny additional education benefits" . R. at 5-6 (c iting 38 U.S.C. § 3695(a) ).

II. Ana lys is A. P artie s' C ont e ntio ns I n his principal brief, t he appellant larg ely reiter ates a

rg uments that he had ma de bef ore the B oa rd. He argue s th a t th e " g ov e rnme nt h a s th e a uth or ity , und e r t

he same statut e wh ic h [it ] is claiming [i mposes] a 48[ -]month l imit on t raining , to waive that 48[-]mont h limit on training " a nd that VA is " g uilty

of breach of contra ct" beca use t he appe llant had alre ady satisfied his part of the

a g re e me nt w he n V A " te rm inat[e d]" the c on tr a c t. B r. a t 4- 5. I n s up po rt of his c on tr a c tua l argume nts , th e app ell ant ass ert s th at (1) becau se "t here is no lac k o f sp eci fi c det ail in th [ e] enl is tm ent con tac t", the omission of such a " materia l" ter m r eg arding the "48[-]month limit" indicates that it is not part of the c ontrac t, and (2) VA, "a cting as the ag ent for the Depa rtment of the Army ", the party to the contra ct, " is now estopped fr om adding a new term to the enlistment contra ct" . Br . at 6-7. F ur the rm or e , th e a

pp e lla nt argue s that the statut or y pr ov isi on lim iti ng the pe ri od of e nti tle me nt t o 48 mo nt hs app li es o nl y

to th e te n-y ear p eri odin whi c h t he b enef it s m ay be u sedandth at, if

"a veter an subseque ntly

enter s the s ervic e for a differe nt war, a nd obtains a newten[-] y ear entitlement period unde r anothe r statute, he log ically also obtains the rig ht to accr ue up to 48 months of

e du c a tio na l e nti tle me nt t o be us e d dur ing that ne w t e n[- ]y e ar p e ri od " . B r. a t 8. Th e a pp e lla nt a lso argues that the 48-month limit was not meant to apply to separate periods of se rvice . Br . at 10-12. I n his moti on for summary judgme nt, the Secre tary

argues that 38 U.S.C. § 3 6 95(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 20.4020(a) (4), (a)( 5) m andate that the veteran cannot, absent wa iver, re ceive more than 48 months of benef

its, and that the instant appea l "doe s n o t i n v olve any deter mination that the [a] ppellant was not e ntitled to [ c]hapter 31 be nefits in excess of the 48-month limitation, so [ section] 3695(b) is not rele vant"

. Mot. at 6. I n response to the appellant' s brea ch-of -contra ct ar g uments, the Se c re tary a sse rt s th a t " VAis n ot a

pa rt y to a ny c on tr a c t th a t th e [a]p pe ll ant m ay have sig ne d w ith the Army in 1991, so his reme dy , if one ex ists, li es ag ainst the Depa rtment of the Ar

my ". Mot. at 8. Fur thermore , the Secr etar

y argues that the a

ppellant cites no authority for his ar g uments reg arding cong ressional intent with respe ct to bot h t h e "10-y ear rule" and the 48- month lim itation apply ing5

only to vetera ns serving a " single period of military service ". Mot. at 8-9. The S ecr etar y also argues that the veter an' s arguments raised to the Boa rd reg arding detrimental relianc e have be en aba ndoned on appea l. Mot. at 9 (citing R. at 4-5 for a ppellant' s argument and Ford v. Gobe r , 10 Vet.App. 531, 53 5-3 6 ( 19 97 ); De

gm e tic h v . B ro wn , 8 Vet.App. 208, 209 ( 1995); and Bu c k lin ge r v . B ro wn , 5 V e t

. A p p
. 4 3 5 , 4 3 6 ( 1 9 9 3 ) , f o r a b an d o n m e n t l aw )

. B a s e d o nt h e a u t h o r i t y c i t e d

b y t h e S e c r e t a r

y, the Court ag ree s and consider s that argument abandone d. Se e Fo rd , Degme tich , and Buck linger , a ll

su pra . After the par ties filed these ple ading s, the Court issued a briefing order , reque sting that the parties r espond to the languag e in the enlistment contra ct (quoted above) that states that " [m ]embers of the Selec ted Reser

ve who h av ec om

plete d a cour

se of inst ruc tio n re qui

re d f or a b ac he lor 's degree or have the equivalent

. . . are in elig ible for be nefits" and that entitlements ar e for education

" leading up t

o an un dergraduate degree or the equivalent"

. Dave nport v. Principi , No. 99-2030, 2001 WL 1182699 (Ve t. App. Oct. 1, 2001) ( citing R. at 28). I n response to the Court order, the appellant a sserts that t he gover nment form conta ining the terms of the c ontrac t was cr eate d in 1985 and that, pursuant to a n amendment to 10 U.S.C. § 16131, the rule that such bene fits are only for the pursuit of a bac cala ureate deg ree or an e quivalent prog ram
was a bolished after the creation of that form. Response (Resp.) at 1-2 (citing Pub. L . No. 101-189 § 642(a) , 103 Stat. 1352 (1989) (codified as amende d at 10 U.S.C. § 2131(c) (1), late r re numbere d

a t 10 U. S.C. § 1 61 31 (c )( 1) )) . T he a pp e lla nt a rgue s th a t be c a

us e " the statut e is c ry sta l c le ar" , h e is "e ntitled to the [ c]hapter 106 be nefits" . Resp. at 2. I n the Secre tary ' s response, he argues that the public law to which the a ppellant re fer

red d i d n ot actually

amend the statute as the a ppellant sug g ested, but instead reta ined the restric tion that the bene fit pertain to only bacc alaur eate -deg ree
or e qu iva le nt p ro g ra

ms. Re sp . at 1- 2. F ur

the rm or e , th e Se c re ta

ry c on te nd s that the e ff

e c tiv e date of that provision, September 30 , 1 9 9 0, "w ould have include d potential benef its sought by

the [a] ppellant" . Resp. at 2. Citing a November 1993 amendment that struck the limiti ng lang uag e and pr ov ide d a

ne w s ub se c tio n th a t sp e c if ic a lly pe rm its be ne fi ts f

or po st- ba c c a la

ur e a te -d e g re e pr og ra

ms "subje ct to the availability of appropriations", the Secre tary argues t hat this amendment is the one that does what the appellant asser ts that the prior public law did, but the Sec reta ry contends that the amendment is not applicable to the appellant' s claims beca use, pursua

nt to Ry an v . W

est , 13 Vet.App.6

151, 156 (1999), a

nd Lan dg ra f v . U SI Fi lm Pr od

uc ts , 511 U.S. 244, 265 (1994), it " cannot be rea d to have retroac tive eff

ect"

. Resp. at 2-3. The Sec reta ry conclude s that even if the Court determines that Landgraf

do e s n ot a

pp ly , " the [a]p pe lla

nt is othe rw ise pr e c lud e d fr om e nti tle me nt t o th e be ne fi t he n o w s eeks by

vi rtue o f t he aggregate p eri odall owe d b y law for th e recei pt of s uch ben efi ts ". Resp. at 3 (c iting, inter a lia, 38 U.S.C. § 3695(a)). The a ppellant filed a

reply , in which he a

rg ues that irre spective of whether the law wa s
a me nd e d in

19 89 or in 19 93 , the Se c re tary ' s argume nt r e g ard ingre tr oa c tiv ity is i rr e le va

nt, be c a us e the veter an "d id not enroll in the prog ram of g radua te instruction until 1996". Reply at 2. The

a pp e lla nt c on te nd s th a t th e fa c t th a t he re c e ive d a pp ro xima te ly

tw o y e ars of

be ne fi ts f or his g ra du a te
s tu dy p r o g r a m " i s d i r e c tan d

d e f i n i t i v e p r o o f

t h a ts u c h b e n e f

i t s w e r e p ay a

b l e "

. R e p l y

a t2

. In addition, the appellant a

rg ues that Cong ress intende d, wi t h the Reser ve GI Bill, to provide an incentive f

o r college g raduates who had a lrea dy used their " Reg ular GI

Bill" benef

its to attend

c oll e g e to no w joi n the Re se rv e s, and that a ll ma te ri a l te rm s sh ou ld have be e n in the c on tr a c t be c a

us e

" [y ]ou c ann ot e xpe c t e ve ry ve te ra n, wh e n r e a din g an en lis tme nt co ntr a c t, to a lso re a d th e e nti re U. S. Code" . Reply

at 3. B. Cou rt's Disposi tion Se c tio n 1 61 31 (a ) d ir e c ts m ili tary de pa rtme nts to " e sta

bli shand ma int a in a

pr og ra m to provide e ducational a ss i s t an ce t o members of the Selecte d Reserve of the Rea dy Reserve of the

arm e d fo rc e s" fo r me mbe rs wh o se rv e a t le a st six y e ars
. 10 U.S. C. § 1 61 31 (a); see 10 U. S.C. § 16132. Section 16131(b) pr ovides that " eac h educational assistance pr og ram e stablished under subsec ti o n ( a ) s h a ll p r o v id e f o r p ay me n t b y th e Se c r e ta

r y c o n c e r n e d , thr o u g h th e Se c r e ta ry of Veter ans Aff

airs, to ea ch per son entitled to educational assistance unde r this c hapter who is pursuing

a p r o g r a m o f e d

u c a t i o n o f an e d

u c a t i o n a l a s s i s t an c e a l l o w an c e a t t h e f o l l o w i n g r a t e s " ; t h e sta tut e th en s ets for th th e app li cabl e rat es. 10 U

. S .C . § 16 13 1(b )(1 ). S ect io n 1 61 31 (h) pro vi des : "A prog ram of e ducation in a c ourse of instruction bey ond the bac cala ureate deg ree level shall be provided by

this chapter, subje ct to the ava ilability of appr opriations." 10 U .S.C. § 16131(h). Se c tio n 3 69 5 o f t itl e 38 , U .S. Cod e , p ro vid e s in pe rt ine nt p art : (a) The a ggre gat e per iod for which a ny person may

rec eive assistance under two or more of the provisions of law lis t ed b elow may not exceed 48 months (or the pa rt-time equivale nt thereof ):7 . . . . (4) Chapte rs 30, 32, 34, 35, and 36 of t his tit le, and the f ormer chapte r 33. (5) Chapte rs 107, 1606, and 1611 of title 10.

. . . . (b ) N o p e rs on

may re c e ive a ssi sta

nc e un de r c ha

pte r 3 1 o f t

his tit le in combination with as s i s t ance under any of the provisions of law c it e d in s u

b s e c ti o n ( a ) o f th is s e c ti o n in e xc e s s o f 4 8 mo n th s
. . . un le ss t he Se c re tary

de te rm ine s th a t a dd iti on a l mo nth s o f b e ne fi ts under c hapter

31 of t his title are nece ssary to acc omplish t he purpose s of a r ehabilitation prog ram . . . in the individual ca se. 38 U. S.C. § 3 69 5; see 38 C.F.R. § 21.4020 (2002).

' "T he startingp o i nt in interpreting a statute is its lang uag e' ", Le e ( Ra y mo nd ) v . W est , 1 3 Ve t

. Ap p
. 3 8 8 , 3 9 4 (2 0 0 0 ) ( qu o t i n g Go od Sa ma rit an Ho sp . v . S

ha lal a , 508 U.S. 402, 409 (1993)); "if t he i nt ent of C on gress is cle ar, th at is th e end of th e mat ter ." Cac ati an v . W est , 12 Vet.App. 373, 3 7 6 (1 9 9 9 ) ( ci t i n g Ga rd

ne r v . B ro wn , 5 F .3 d at 14 56 ); se e als o Me e k s v . W est , 12 Vet.App. 352, 354 (1999) ( "Princ iples of statutory construction re qu i re t h at , wher e a statute has a pla in meaning , a Court shall give eff

ect to that mea

ning[;] . . . each par

t or section should be construed in c onnection with ever y other pa rt or sec tion so as to produce a h armonious whole." (inter nal quotations and

c itatio ns omi tte d) ). " I n d e te rm ini ngthe pla in m e anin g of sta tut or y langua g e , ' le g isl a tiv e purp os e is

ex pres sed by th e ord in ary mea ni ng of th e wor ds us ed. '" J on es ( Mc Ar thu r) v . B ro wn , 41 F.3d 634, 6 3 8 (F ed

. C i r. 1 9 9 4 ) ( qu o t i n g Ar de sta ni v . I NS , 502 U.S. 129, 136 (1991)). He re , th e pla in langua g e of se c tio n 3 69 5( a ) p ro hib its the awa rd of be ne fi ts f or an a g g re g a te period of mor e than 48 months for e ducation bene fits under c hapter 34 of title 38 and cha

pter 1606 of title 10. 38 U.S.C. § 3695(a)(4) , (5). Be fore he enr olled in the Army Reserve s, the veter an had used 45 months of chapte r 34 educa tion be nefits, the maxi mum amount available to h i m under 38 U.S.C. § 3461(c), with which he had attende d law school, taken a bar-re view cour se, and attended business school. Se e Da v e np or t I , 7 Vet.App. at 477 ( located a t R. at 32). At that point, he also had

us e d 4 5 o f t

he 48 mon ths of

e du c a tio n b e ne fi ts a llo we d by 10 U.S .C. § 1 61 31 . U nd e r t he pla in8

lang uag e of the statute, the vete ran w as there afte r entitled to rec eive only three months of chapter 1606 benef

its. 38 U.S.C . § 3695(a)

. There fore , the S ecr etar y is corr ect (Mot. at 5) that the vete ran ha s r e c e ive d mo re tha

n 2 3 mo nth s o f e du c a tio n b e ne fi ts t o w hic h h e wa s n ot e nti tle d und e r t he pla in statut or y langua g e . 3 8 U .S. C. § 36 95 (a ); see R. at 77, 56-57, 67-68, 72-73. B eca use the Court holds that t h e appellant is not elig ible, under the statute, for e ducation bene fits pay able f or per iods of enrollment af

ter Nove mber 30, 1997, the Court ne ed not re ach the issue reg ardingthe bac cala ureatede g re e lim itatio n in the statut e and wh e the r su c h a statut or y lim itatio n a

pp lie s to the ve te ra

n' s c la ims for be nefits. The a ppellant ar g ues that, pursuant to the s ame statute under which VA may impose the 48- month lim it, VA has the a uthority to waive that limit. Br. at 4. The statu t e d o es n ot, however , pr ov ide fo r s uc h a

wa ive r; rathe r, the wa ive r to wh ic h the a pp e lla nt re fe rs is c on ta ine d in

38 U. S.C. § 3695(b) a

nd 38 C.F.R. § 21.4020(b) a nd pertai n s s o l el y to the waiver of a 48- month lim it "on

co mb i n i n g as s i s t an ce r ece ived un d e r [ c ] ha p te r 31 [(vocational re habilitation)] wit h assistance under another prog ram" . 38 U.S.C. § 3695(b); 38 C.F.R. § 21.4020(b). Be ca u s e t he appe llant is not seeking"a dditional months of bene fits under c hapter 31", the se sec tions are irr eleva nt to the instant claim. As to the appellant' s arguments that Congr ess intended the 48-month lim i t at i o n on bene f ic ia r ie s u n d e r c h a p te r s 3 4 an d

1 6 0 6 to a

p p ly to o n ly " th o s e v e te r an s w h o s e s in g le p e r io d of mil ita ry se rv ic e qu a lif

ie d th e m f or bo th o f t he se pr og ra

ms" (B r. a t 10 ), the Court

ho lds that th e pla in lang uag e of the statute that limit s "[t] he ag g reg ate pe riod for w hich any person may re c e ive be ne fi ts
un der t wo o r m ore o f [ th ese] pro vi si on s o f l aw" app li es, as t he s tat ut e pl ain ly st ate s, to "any pers on ", reg ardle ss of the number of service periods that person has had. See Jo nes (M c Ar thu r) and Ardestani , both s u

p ra . Mo re ov e r, the Court no te s th a t, e ve n w e re we to h old that th e statut e is

a mbi g uo us , w hic h w e do no t, the a pp e lla nt h a s c ite d n o le g isl a tiv e his tor y to s up po rt

his interpre tation of the statutory languag e. In essenc e, he ha s raised policy arguments, which ar e not the province of this Court to consider. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252, 7261(a). As for the appellant' s arguments that VA, " actingas an a g ent for t h e De p ar tment of the Army ", br eac hed its "c ontrac t" with him to provide educ ation benef its in return f

or his service (R. at 28; Br. at 4-7), the Court has pr eviously held in Ha rv e

y v . B ro wn that, even if it had deter mined that common-law c ontrac t principles applied to the e nlistm ent ag ree ment there at i ssue, " the re medy for9

[such a contra ct] breac h in this case ca nnot be the re lief that the ve tera n seeks, a d i rec tion by

the Court that the unauthorized enlistment contrac t be honored throug h specific perf ormanc e, be c aus e the v eteran is not eligible to re ceiv e such be nefits under statu tory law ." Harve y , 6 Vet.App. 416, 424 (1994) ( emphasis adde d) (c iting Un ite d Sta te s v . La rio no

ff , 431 U.S. 864, 869 (1977) (holding that w here qu est ion

is b re a c h o f e nli stm e nt- e xten sio n bo nu s a g re e me nt, c ourt s sh ou ld r e fe r t o statut e s and re g ulatio ns rathe r tha n o rd ina ry c on tr a c t pr inc ipl e s) ; Bell v. United States , 366 U.S. 393, 401 (1961) (" [c] ommon law rules g overning private c ontrac ts have no plac e in the ar ea of milit ary pa y " ); Peav y v. W arner , 493 F.2d 748, 750 ( 5th Cir.1974) (dec iding c laim that enlistment-ext ension

c on tr a c t w a s in va lid

or wa s b re a c he d und e r tr a dit ion a l noti on s o f c on tr a c t la w) ; Johnson v. Chafee , 46 9 F .2 d 1 21 6, 12 20 (9 th C ir .1 97 2) (i mpl ie dly same ); Shelton v. Brunson , 46 5 F .2 d 14 4, 14 7 ( 5th Cir. 1972) (same ); and Helton v. United States , 5 3 2 F

. Su p p
. 8 1 3 , 8 2 4 ( S. D

. G a
. 1 9 8 2 ) ( s a me ) )

. " ' [I ]t would be most anomalous for a judicial order

t o re q u i re a Gove rnment off icial . . . to make a

n
e xtra statut or

y pa y me nt o f fe de ra l fu

nd s[; i]t is a fe de ra l c ri me , punis ha ble by fi ne and imp ri so nme nt, for a ny Gover nment office r or employ ee to knowing ly spend m oney in excess of that appr opriated by Co ngres s. '" Harve

y , su pra (quot i n g OP

M v. Richm ond , 4 96 U. S. 4 14 , 4 30 (1 99 0) ). As in H arvey , even we re the Court to d e te rm ine he re (1 ) t

hat so ve re ig n im mun ity

do e s n ot a

pp ly , U .S. C O N ST . amend. XI ; L ittle Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a) (2); (2) that the C ourt could enter tain such arguments based on a sserted c ontrac t rig hts; (3) that the Noti ce of Ba sic Eligibility document (R. at 28) is a contr act; and (4) that VA w as, as the a ppellant claims, ac ting a s "the ag ent for the De pa rtme nt f or the Ar my " (B r. a t 7) , th e Cou

rt c ou ld n ot e nf

or c e su c h a

c on tr a c t, b e c a

us e it w ou ld be g rantinga bene fit that "the veter an is not elig ible to rec eive . . . unde r statutory law"

. Har vey , su pra ; see also Richm ond , Lar ion off , and Be ll , a ll su

pra . Th e Court

no te s, ho we ve r, that th e re are a dd iti on a l que sti on s r a ise d b y the No tic e of

B a sic El ig ibi lity

do c ume nt. R. at 28 . Sp e c if ic a lly , it a pp e ars that the do c ume nt ( 1) make s e lig ibl e on ly

re s er v i s t s wh o " a g r e e d t o s er v e s i x y ea rs i nt h e S el ec t i v e R es er v e" f ro m "J u l y 1 , 1 9 8 5 [ , ] t h ro u gh J une 30, 1988" , (2) make s ineligible those rese rvists who have c ompleted a ba cca laure ate de g ree or the equivale nt, and (3) imposes a "ma x imum of 36 months of educ ational assistance ". R. at 28. The Court expresses no view on the r esolution of these que stions in l ight of the above analy sis.10 III. Conclusi on Upon consider ation of the fore g oing analy sis, the ROA, and the pa rties' pleading s, the Court holds that the appellant ha s not demonstrated that the B oard c ommitt ed er ror that would wa

rra nt
reve rs a l o r

r e ma n d

. T h e r e f

o r e , th e Co u rt a f

f ir ms th e Se p te mb e r

1 4 , 1 9 9 9 , B V A d e c is io n. AFF I RMED.