NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

______________________

In Re GEORGE DUNBAR PREWITT, JR.,

Petitioner

______________________

2024-119

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States 

Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:22-cv-01673-TMD, Judge 

Thompson M. Dietz.

______________________

ON PETITION

______________________

Before STOLL, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

George Dunbar Prewitt, Jr. petitions this court for a 

writ of mandamus directing the United States Court of 

Federal Claims to issue an “appealable order” or alternatively, “directing the defendant to deposit my retirement 

benefits into the registry of the CFC.” ECF No. 2 at 1. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(3), 1651. 

In November 2022, Mr. Prewitt filed a complaint in the 

Court of Federal Claims primarily challenging the Army 

Board for Correction of Military Records’s denial of disability retirement benefits. In April 2023, the Court of Federal 

Case: 24-119 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 06/25/2024
2 IN RE PREWITT

Claims remanded to the Board for reconsideration. In August 2023, the Board issued a decision granting partial relief by ordering correction of Mr. Prewitt’s records to 

indicate that “he was retired for permanent disability with 

a 30 percent disability rating effective 11 March 1970, with 

placement on the Permanent Disability Retired List the 

following day.” Prewitt v. United States, No. 1:22-cv-01673-

TMD (Fed. Cl. Aug. 31, 2023) (Dkt. No. 38 at 19). 

Following the Board’s decision, the parties attempted 

to resolve various issues, including the calculation of benefits and necessary paperwork for Mr. Prewitt to receive 

benefits, but hit a stalemate. Mr. Prewitt subsequently 

moved for judgment on the record seeking a higher disability rating, and the government filed a cross-motion for 

judgment on the record asking the Court of Federal Claims 

to find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision and to dismiss the remainder of the complaint. Those 

motions remain pending before the trial court. 

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is only 

available where the petitioner shows: (1) a clear and indisputable right to relief; (2) no adequate alternative avenue 

for relief; and (3) that mandamus is appropriate under the 

circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 

367, 380-81 (2004). Mr. Prewitt has not shown entitlement 

to relief under this standard. Mr. Prewitt can obtain the 

ultimate relief he is seeking without our immediate intervention by continuing to pursue his case in the trial court 

and then a direct appeal, if necessary, following final judgment. As to Mr. Prewitt’s request to direct the trial court 

to issue an appealable order, Mr. Prewitt’s case in the 

Court of Federal Claims is proceeding, and we cannot say 

he has shown any egregious delay in resolution of the case

that might warrant mandamus relief. 

Accordingly, 

Case: 24-119 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 06/25/2024
IN RE PREWITT 3

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition is denied.

June 25, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

 

Case: 24-119 Document: 7 Page: 3 Filed: 06/25/2024