Opinion ID: 508850
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Retired Pay

Text: 48 Likewise, the potential receipt of increased retired pay is insufficient to establish economic prejudice. Retired pay is reduced pay for reduced current services. Hostinsky v. United States, 292 F.2d 508, 510, 154 Ct.Cl. 443 (1961) (an officer draws retired pay because he is still an officer in service of country); Lemly v. United States, 75 F.Supp. 248, 249, 109 Ct.Cl. 760 (1948) (an officer receiving retired pay is still an officer in the service of his country even though on the retired list); see United States v. Tafoya, 803 F.2d 140, 142 (5th Cir.1986) (retired pay is  'current pay' designed in part to compensate [an officer] for his continuing readiness to return to duty should his country have need to call upon him); Costello v. United States, 587 F.2d 424, 427 (9th Cir.1978) (retirement pay does not differ from active duty pay in its character as pay for continuing military service); Berkey v. United States, 361 F.2d 983, 987 n. 9, 176 Ct.Cl. 1 (1966) (retired pay has generally not been considered a pension, grant, or gratuity, but as something the serviceman earns and has earned). According to the Supreme Court, 49 [M]ilitary retired pay differs in some significant respects from a typical pension or retirement plan. The retired officer remains a member of the Army, see United States v. Tyler, 105 U.S. [ (15 Otto) ] 244 [26 L.Ed. 985] (1882), and continues to be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.... In addition, he may forfeit all or part of his retired pay if he engages in certain activities. Finally, the retired officer remains subject to recall to active duty ... at any time. ... These factors have led several courts, including this one, to conclude that military retired pay is reduced compensation for reduced current services. 50 McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210, 221-22, 101 S.Ct. 2728, 2735-36, 69 L.Ed.2d 589 (1981) (emphasis added); 3 see also Tyler, 105 U.S. (15 OHO) at 245. 51 Unlike an award of back pay where the government in effect pays for unperformed service, receipt of retired pay by an officer means the government will pay for the reduced service it then receives. This is no detriment; the government gets what it pays for. 52 Moreover, using potential retired pay as a basis for finding prejudice ignores the fact that officers will earn no more as retirees if they prevail on the merits then they would have earned had they been permitted an uninterrupted military career. Accordingly, the payment of retired pay simply places an officer in the same position he would have been in had he not been wrongfully discharged. The delay does not put the government in any different position than if the claimant had filed suit immediately. 53 Even if there is a slight aura of a pension about retired pay, it is entirely speculative whether or not a service member will retire or will continue on active duty even after he is eligible for retirement. More than that, a service member may die, be separated from the service, or voluntarily leave the service before he is eligible for retired pay. Indeed, even after retirement the amount of pay a retiree will receive, if any, is uncertain, depending on longevity and even the type of post-retirement work pursued. See, e.g., McCarty, 453 U.S. at 222 & n. 14, 101 S.Ct. 2728, 2736, & n. 14. Prejudice should not be predicated on benefits that are not certain to accrue, that are in a real sense, speculative. Cf. American Western Corp. v. United States, 730 F.2d 1486, 1489 (Fed.Cir.1984). 54 A court will have to guess about the future if it relies on retired pay to establish prejudice. And since retired pay is tied to both length of service and rank while serving, see 10 U.S.C. Secs. 3911, 3929, 3991, virtually every successful claim for reinstatement and back pay may have an effect on an officer's potential retired pay. Cf. Moody v. United States, 650 F.2d 290 [Table], 222 Ct.Cl. 636, 639 (1980). Accordingly, potential receipt of retired pay is not prejudicial.