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

04-5157 WILLIAM AARON JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

__________________ _________ DECIDED: September 9, 2005

__________________ _________ Before RADER, Circuit Judge , FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge , and DYK, Circuit Judge

. RADER, Circuit Judge

. William Aaron Jackson appeals the August 31, 2004 order of t he United States Court of Federal Claims (Court of Federal Claims) dismissi ng his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Because Mr. Jackson did not file his claim within the applicable statute of limitations, this court affirms

. BACKGROUND Mr. Jackson served in the United States Army for approximately two years beginning in 1977, including si x and one-half months on active duty. Mr. Jackson alleges that while on active duty, $345.00 was withheld eac h month from his normal, E1, pay of $500.00 per month. According to Mr. Jackson, the withheld funds were meantfor: (1) the purchas e of U.S. Savings Bonds; (2) deposit into checking and sav i ngs accounts; and (3) “i nsurance polic ies.” Mr. Jackson further alleges t hat he never received pay for his last month in basic trai ning. Mr. Jackson filed su it in the United States District Court for the Western Distric t of Missouri, seeking damages in excess o f $19 billion based on the Government’s breac h of “military contracts.” Because Mr. Jackson’s claims inv o lve an alleged contract with a branch of the military, and see k damages exceeding $10,000, the di strict court transferred the action to the United States Court of Federal Claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. The Cou r t of Federal Claims dismissed Mr. Jackson’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction, citing the six-year statute of limitations set fo rth in 28 U.S.C. § 2501. DISCUSSI ON This court has jurisdiction to hear Mr. Jackson’s appeal under 28 U. S.C. §1295(a)(3). Becaus e jurisdiction present s a question of law, this court reviews the Court of Federal Claims’ decision to dis m i ss the suit as barred by the statute of limitations without deference. See Brown v. United States , 195 F.3d 1334, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Claims against the United St ates in the Court of Federal Claims must be filed “within six years after such claim fi rst accrues.” 28 U.S.C. § 2501 (2000); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2501 (1976) (effective when Mr. Jackson’s cl aims arose). The six-year limitations period “is a jurisdictional require m ent attached by Congr ess as a condition of the government's waiver of sovereign i mmunity and, as such, must be strictly construed.” Hopland Band of Pomo Indians v. United States , 855 F.2d 1573, 1576-77

04-5157 2(Fed. Cir. 1988). Exceptions to the conditi ons under which the Government consents to be sued should not be implied. United States v. Mitchell , 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980). According t o Mr. Jackson, the Court of Federal Claims erred when it found t hat all his claims arose, at the latest, upon leavi ng the military. Mr. Jackson argues that his claims did not arise u n til he first requested t hat the military return his mon e y. To the contrary, “[a] claim first a ccrues for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2501 when all the events have occ u rred which fix the liability of the Government and entitle the claimant t o institute an action.” Alder Terrace, Inc. v. U n ited States , 161 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quotation and citation omitted). As the Court of Federal Claim s correctly observed, each of the particu lar withholdings at iss ue, if properly made, would not ordinarily give rise to a clai m against the Government in the Court of Federal Claims if the ultimate benefit was not received. Thus , a dispute regarding f unds deposited into a checking or savings account would be betw een Mr. Jackson and t he institution wher e those funds were deposited. Likewise, the proceeds of an insurance policy would be a matter between Mr. Jackson and the Insurer. Finally, there is no claim that savings bonds were actually issued to Mr. Jackso n, and that payment on those bonds was refused by the Government. Thus, to the extent Mr. Jackson has any c l aim against the Unit ed States it is based o n his compla int that the military did n o t dir e ct his p a y in the manner he requested at the time of his s e rvice. This c haracterization als o applies to the month’s pay Mr. Jackson asserts was never iss ued to him originally. Under thos e circumstances, the events neces sary to fix t he Government’s liability arose at the time of his milit ary service, and at the very lates t, at the close of that service. Thus, the

04-5157 3Court of Federal Claim s properly determined that Mr. Ja ckson’s asserted claims arose, at the latest, when he ended his service in the military, some twenty-four years before his filed co mplaint. Mr. Jackso n makes three additional argumen ts that seem to be distinct from his claim accrual argum ent: (1) he tried “to take care of this business before his claim s [were] barred”; (2) he was unaware of the statute of l i mitations until he br ought this action; and (3) he was only seventeen when he originally entered into the alleged
contracts. First, the record suggests that Mr. Ja ckson initially attempted to resolve the issues rais ed in his c o mplaint during 2002 and 2003, well beyond the tim e when his claim was barred by the stat ute of limitations. Even if Mr. Jackson had attempted to resolve his issues earlier, those attempts woul d not hav e tolled the statute of limitations. See Fattore v. United States , 312 F.2d 797 ( C t. Cl. 1963) (“[ W]here a right of action has accrued, the statute of limitations is not tolled by atte mpts to obtain subsequent relief through the administrative process.”). Second, the fact that Mr. Jackso n might have been unaware of his legal rights, and thus the lim itation on when those rights could be assert ed, does not help him here

. “Ignorance of one’s legal right s does not toll the stat ute of limitations.” Cata wba Ind i an Tribe of South Caro lina v. United States , 982 F.2d 1564, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting Dion v. United States , 137 Ct. Cl. 166 (1956)). Finally, Mr. Jackson’s age u p o n enter ing the milita r y has no bearing o n the statute of limitations issue. As the Court of Federal Claims correctly observed, Mr.

04-5157 4Jackson’s claims aro s e, if at all, upon le a v ing the military, wh e n he was older than eighteen. CONCLUS ION Because t he Court of F ederal Claims correctly det ermined that Mr. Jackson’s claims were barred by the statute of limitati ons, this c ourt affirms the dismissal of Mr. Jackson’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

04-5157 5