Opinion ID: 2685740
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Court of Federal Claims Suit

Text: In November 2007, Havens brought a Tucker Act action against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims and 9 In setting out the facts, the district court stated that the BCNR treated Havens’s February 2005 application as a request for reconsideration. We disagree. Unlike the earlier reconsideration denials, the BCNR’s 2006 decision does not mention “reconsideration” or the “new and material evidence” standard. See JA 70, 74, 83. Moreover, the 2006 decision manifests that the BCNR reached the merits of Havens’s application, unlike the earlier reconsideration denials. See JA 70, 74, 83. Finally, the BCNR had confirmed previously by letter to Havens that, “[i]f [Havens] were to submit a request for correction of [his] record to show that [he] were retired by reason of physical disability on 1 March 2002, . . . it would be treated as a new application, rather than a request for reconsideration of a previous application.” Admin. Rec. 107, Havens v. Mabus, No. 1:10-cv-01859 (D.D.C. Jan. 19, 2011). 9 filed an amended complaint in early 2008. 10 His amended complaint alleged, inter alia, that he “was improperly released from active duty in 1996 despite being medically unfit for release,” Ct. of Fed. Cl. Am. Compl. ¶ 85, Havens v. United States, No. 07-780 C (Fed. Cl. Mar. 13, 2008), and that the United States, acting through the Navy and the BCNR, improperly deprived him of “monetary benefits including pay, allowances and disability retired pay” by (1) “failing to convene a medical board in 1996,” (2) finding him Not Physically Qualified instead of Unfit in 2002 and (3) denying his multiple requests for a record correction, id. ¶¶ 86-90. Havens asked the court to “restore [him] to active duty with all pay and benefit[s] retroactive to September 1, 1996” and to order the Navy to evaluate him through the DES. Id. ¶ 93. In the alternative, Havens requested that the court itself modify the 2002 PEB decision––thereby entitling him to benefits or separation pay––or remand to the BCNR for it to determine whether he should receive benefits or separation pay. See id. The United States moved to dismiss the suit pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), arguing that Havens’s complaint was untimely under the Tucker Act’s jurisdictional, six-year statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2501; Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (en banc) (Tucker Act statute of limitations “is jurisdictional in nature”). The Court of Federal Claims agreed with the United States and dismissed Havens’s claims as time-barred. The Federal Circuit affirmed without opinion. See Havens v. United States, 330 F. App’x 920 (Fed. Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 992 (2010). 10 The Tucker Act gives the Court of Federal Claims exclusive jurisdiction over non-tort suits against the United States seeking more than $10,000 in damages. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); id. § 1346(a)(2). 10