U.S. Court of Federal Claims - Military Pay Claims

Monroe v. United States, No. 18-1059C (November 13, 2020)   

ATTORNEY'S FEES: In this case, Plaintiff's substantially prevailed in his lawsuit against the U.S. Government concerning his involuntary separation and medical unfitness. The Court awarded $50,881.27 in attorney's fees and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act.  

Lancaster v. United States, 22-267C (July 23, 2023)

ATTORNEY'S FEES: In this case, the Court found that Plaintiff was not entitled to attorney's fees because Plaintiff was not a prevailing party - even though the Army took voluntary corrective actions. The Court said 'Because a voluntary change of conduct does not necessarily change the legal relationship of the parties, it cannot make the plaintiff a “prevailing party.”

Norager v. United States, No. 22-135 (August 8, 2024)

ATTORNEY’S FEES: In this case, the Court remanded Plaintiff’s action to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (‘ABCMR’) and the ABCMR agreed to grant relief. This case concerned being wrongly denied military disability retirement benefits and not being referred to the Disability Evaluation System. After being granted relief by the Army, Plaintiff requested attorney’s fees. The Court observed that the remand to the ABCMR was not because of an error, and the Government’s position was justified – based on this Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees was denied.

Tippins v. United States, No. 18-932 (May 16, 2025) 

CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE CREDIT: In this case, the United States Court of Federal Claims explained that the constructive service doctrine intends to return successful plaintiffs to the same position that they would have been – but for their illegal release from duty. In this case, approximately 200 former Coast Guard members filed a lawsuit against the United States Coast Guard arguing that they were involuntarily and illegally retired. In response, the Coast Guard argued that they would have been retired under the high year tenure policy anyway – thus effectively limiting the constructive service doctrine. In reply, plaintiffs argued that the Coast Guard attempted to apply a post hoc procedure to correct its original errors. The Court was concerned about the Coast Guard's approach and it ordered the Coast Guard to calculate Plaintiffs’ retirement dates without using the high year tenure to cut short their period of constructive service.

Burke v. United States, No. 23-961 (July 18, 2023)

COURT FEE: Failure to pay the Court fee of $402 will result in a dismissal of the complaint. In this case, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the fee and the Plaintiff failed to do so. The Court also pointed out that if she paid the fee, it would still not have jurisdiction over her case.

Dillon v. United States, No. 21-2016C (August 27, 2024)

COURT-MARTIAL COLLATERAL ATTACK: In this case, Plaintiff alleged that he should have been medically retired under 10 U.S.C. 1201 and 10 U.S.C. 1202 due to medical disability.  Instead, the Army revoked his retirement orders, court-martialed him, he was found guilty, and dishonorably discharged. Plaintiff represented himself and the Department of Justice moved to dismiss. The Court granted the motion and Plaintiff requested reconsideration. The Court explained in that in order to review a court-martial decision, plaintiff had to show a lack of fundamental fairness in the court-martial proceedings. Because Plaintiff failed to proffer any reason to show the error, and even if he did – he could not show that his retirement orders were improperly revoked – the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion.

Labonte Jr. v. United States, No. 18-1784C (October 30, 2020) 

COURT-MARTIAL CONVICTION: In this case, Plaintiff was court-martialed and received a bad conduct discharge. Subsequently, his characterization of discharge was upgraded to a general under honorable conditions. In his lawsuit, Plaintiff argued that he was entitled to disability retirement because of his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI). The Army Board for Correction of Military Records denied relief. The Court noted that it could not set aside Plaintiff’s conviction under 10 U.S.C. § 1552. It also noted that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records had no such power. Based on this, the Court decided to dismiss his lawsuit. The Court also noted that more than 6 years have passed since Plaintiff’s discharge.

Cooper v. United States, 32-1427 (August 21, 2024)

DFAS CALCULATIONS: In this case, Plaintiff’s court-martial conviction was set aside because of ineffective assistance of counsel. Because the conviction was set-aside, Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) had to calculate pay owed to Plaintiff. In total, before the lawsuit, DFAS paid Plaintiff approximately $93,000. After Plaintiff filed a lawsuit at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, DFAS made additional payments of over $230,000. Subsequently, the Department of Justice argued that because Plaintiff was actually overpaid – his claims were mooted. The Department of Justice explained that while Plaintiff was likely overpaid, there were no recoupment actions against him. 

Plaintiff did not respond to the government’s motion to dismiss. The Court opined that the issue was moot because Plaintiff already received full relief.

Gregory v. United States, No. 18-1322C (October 31, 2020) 

DISABILITY RATING: In this case, Plaintiff argued that the percentage of his disability rating was incorrectly calculated. The Court found that the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) failed to consider whether Plaintiff’s condition worsened between the time of his entrance into the Disability Evaluation System and his discharge. The Court noted that ‘Briefly rubber stamping previous agency decisions, and the earlier, 2018 AFBCMR decision by the 2019 AFBCMR was not sufficient.’ Because the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records did not consider all the evidence, the Government’s motion for judgment was denied and the Court remanded the case to the Board again. The Court noted that it was ‘[u]nfortunate as yet another remand is to further elongate the proceedings for plaintiff. The Court ordered the AFBCMR is ordered this time to consider all of the medical evidence. 

Snyder v. United States, No. 23-1208 (September 5, 2024)

FAILURE TO RESPOND: In this case, the Court granted the government's motion for partial dismissal and its cross-motion for judgment on the administrative record - because plaintiff failed to file responsive filings. Initially, plaintiff alleged multiple violations, including military whistleblower and improper medical retirement. However, plaintiff never filed responsive filings. The Court opined that even if plaintiff idd not initially waive his claims, he forfeitted them by failing to file a reponse to defendant's motion for partial dismissal and motion for judgment.

Draper v. United States, No. 20-1444 (November 30, 2022)

GRADE DETERMINATION: In this case, the Court found that the Air Force erred in reducing plaintiff's retirement rank from Colonel to Lieutenant Colonel. First, the Air Force justified its reduction by making improper references to the record, and then the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records failed to take corrective action. Based on this, the Court remanded this grade determination action to the Air Force.

Olive v. United States, No. 22-424 (May 17, 2023)

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE: In this case, the Court found that the Army rationally denied relief for Combat Related Special Pay compensation. Plaintiff introduced uncorroborated statements made years after the alleged events, service awards that added little information to support Plaintiff's claims, and other documents provided little independent evidence because they were issued years after the alleged events and merely recounted the events without validating them.

Pipes v. United States, No. 15-1163C (January 7, 2022) 

LINE OF DUTY:  In Pipes v. United States, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims found that the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records properly denied medical retirement to Mr. Pipes. The Board found that while Mr. Pipes was in U.S. Air Force Reserve and was injured in the Air Force’s Self-Paced Fitness Improvement Program that he completed between Unit Training Assemblies (UTAa), he failed to show evidence that he was authorized for inactive-duty training (IDT). Based on this, he was not injured in the line of duty (LOD), and under the applicable law, he would not receive disability-retirement pay and benefits. Mr. Pipes argued that he suffered a stroke while he was exercising and therefore he should be medically retired. The Court opined that the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records decision was reasonable, and Mr. Pipes was unable to meet his burden of proof. The Court recognized that consistent with 10 U.S.C. § 1204(2)(B)(i), to qualify for disability retirement, a military member’s disability must, in relevant part, be “a result of an injury, illness, or disease incurred or aggravated in the line of duty . . . while performing active duty or inactive-duty training.” This was not the case here. 

Doyon v. United States, No. 19-1964C (August 19, 2024)

MENTAL HEALTH MISDIAGNOSIS: In Doyon v. United States, the Court of Federal Claims determined that the Board for Correction of Naval Records (‘BCNR’) acted capriciously and arbitrarily. In this case, Plaintiff alleged that he was wrongfully separated from the Navy for unsuitability upon being diagnosed with personality disorder – because he had a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The BCNR heavily relied on the qualifications of mental health providers who diagnosed Plaintiff with a personality disorder in 1968. However, the Court pointed out that PTSD was only recognized as a diagnosis in 1980 and therefore the BCNR’s reasoning failed to consider an important aspect of a problem. (Based on this case, the Department of Defense issued clarifying guidance seeking to restrict the applicability to of the liberal consideration - seek the Vazirani Memorandum here.

Nyan v. United States, No.  20-343C (April 5, 2021)   

MEDICAL RETIREMENT: In this case, the Court directed the Navy to retire Mr. Nyan for two reasons. The first one being that the Navy's medical examination of Mr. Nyan was inconsistent with its own instructions and the second was that it was also not supported by the evidence. The Court also directed that Mr. Nyan receives back pay.  

Marshall v. United States, No. 18-549 (March 1, 2023)

OUT OF POCKET MEDICAL PAY: In this case, the Court of Federal Claims explained, in part, that the Board for Correction of Naval Records is mandated to correct military records, but it does not have authority to award specific monetary awards for reimbursement of medical costs. In this case, the Board for Correction of Naval Records corrected plaintiff's records and recommended to coordinate with TRICARE or DFAS.

Doyon v. United States, No. 19-1964 (August 19, 2024)

PERSONALITY DISORDER: In this case, plaintiff was misdiagnosed with a personality disorder and separated from active duty. In fact, he actually developed then-unrecognized PTSD. Plaintiff argued that he should have been medically retired, but the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) denied relief. The Court of Federal Claims set aside the board's decision because the 'BCNR cherry-pick[ed]s evidence' and it erroneously discounted the medical provider's expertise.

Larkin v. United States, No. 25-219 (June 4, 2025)

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: In this case, the United States Court of Federal Claims denied the Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction to stop Defendant from releasing derogatory information about him. The United States Court of Federal Claims explained that it generally does not provide equitable relief, and any corrective relief must be ‘incident of and collateral to’ the monetary judgment. The Court also explained that it could not order injunctive relief before a monetary judgment – because any such relief could not be ‘collateral’ to the final judgment. Based on this, the Court denied the motion.

Mazarji v. United States, No. 22-750 (February 24, 2023) 

PRESUMPTION OF AGGRAVATION: In this case, the Court of Federal Claims explained that this presumption meant that a servicemember will be presumed to have aggravated the complained-of condition in the line of duty unless the disease or injury was noted at the time of entry into service. The presumption of aggravation attaches once the servicemember shows first that the condition increased in severity. The presumption does not attach when there is 'clear and unmistakable evidence'; in this case, the Court determined that the presumption did not apply because plaintiff was separated in 2014, but only complained of the injury in 2016.

Rempfer v. United States, No. 23-56C (July 7, 2023)

PROMOTION ENTITLEMENT: In this case, Plaintiff (retired Lieutenant Colonel) argued that he was entitled to promotion to the rank of Colonel and retired pay because the Air Force advanced him to the rank of Colonel after he retired. The Court explained that in order to be entitled to the Colonel retired pay, a Service member had to be properly nominated and approved; Plaintiff's advancement did not apply retroactively.  Based on this, he was not entitled to the pay and increased retirement.

Thomassee v. United States, No. 20-1481C (February 15, 2022) 

REMAND: In this case, the United States moved to remand the case to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records. The Plaintiff objected arguing that it would delay the cause, there was bad faith, and the likelihood of the Board granting relief was low. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit arguing that the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records wrongfully refused to increase his disability rating. The Court noted that there was no evidence of bad faith, the record was not clear, and the United States appeared to be willing to reconsider its initial decision - and the Court remanded the case.

Martin v. United States, No. (February 11, 2025)

REMAND: In this case, an action to increase a 70% disability rating, Plaintiff's case was remanded on multiple occasions to different agencies, between 2017 and 2023. Finally, the Army addressed all the concerns and resolved all issues, and the Court found that the Plaintiff failed to show that the agency's decision was arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, or evidence. 

Larkin v. United States, No. 25-219 (June 4, 2025)

REMAND: In this case, the United States Court of Federal Claims denied the Defendant’s request for a remand. The Court explained that there is a 3-part test to determine if a remand is ‘substantial and legitimate’: (1) is there a compelling reason, (2) the need for finality does not outweigh the Defendant’s justification, and (3) the scope of the remand is appropriate. Merely bolstering an agency decision – without any intention to reconsider is not substantial and legitimate.

Kuntz v. United States, No. 18-1541C (February 11, 2019) 

RESERVE COMPONENT: In this case, Plaintiff – a Reserve Soldier – engaged in misconduct while not on active duty. Based on the misconduct, he was charged with numerous offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and court-martialed. He pled guilty and was discharged from Army Reserves. The Army Court of Criminal Appeals upheld his conviction. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces rejected his argument that at the time of misconduct he was not on active duty or under training orders. Subsequently, he filed a lawsuit at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims seeking to restore his rank and grade, back pay, allowances and to correct his military records. The Court dismissed his lawsuit because as a Reserve Soldier he was only entitled to back pay for training or duties because he was not on active duty or under orders for training. The Court reiterated that ‘a reservist can only recover pay under the Military Pay Act for time on active duty or for drills and training actually performed, regardless of whether he was wrongfully removed from duty.’ The Court had no choice but to dismiss his complaint.

Crumley v. United States, No.  21-976C (September 28, 2021) 

RES JUDICATA: In Crumley v. United States, Plaintiff contested his administrative discharge from the Air Force. He was separated in 2011 due to a reduction in force. After the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records denied relief, he filed a lawsuit at the Court of Federal Claims contesting his discharge in 2014.  His lawsuit was dismissed because he did not seek relief through the reduction in force board as required under the law. In 2016, he filed a second lawsuit challenging personnel records that led to his discharge. The Court granted the government's motion for judgment. In 2021, he filed another lawsuit with the Court arguing that the reduction in force board considered incorrect records and that the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records erred. Because in both cases, Mr. Crumley alleged facts that related to the same events, the Court granted the Government's motion to dismiss. 

Johnson v. United States, No. 17-1005 (November 12, 2021)   

RETIREMENT:  In Barry C. Johnson v. United States, (decided November 12, 2021) Mr. Johnson argued that if a soldier reached 20 years of service prior to separation, then under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 2-6(b) the soldier must be offered the opportunity to submit a request for retirement as an alternative to administrative separation. ('A Soldier who has completed 20 or more years of active service creditable toward retirement and for whom separation is recommended to HQDA will be given the opportunity of applying for retirement.') In this case, Mr. Johnson completed 19 years and 8 months of service before he received 2 Article 15 punishments and was administratively separated. Mr. Johnson argued that he was denied this opportunity and separated instead of being retired. The Army Board for Correction of Military Records denied relief finding that at the time he was 4 months short of 20 years of service - so paragraph 2-6(b) did not apply. The Court of Federal Claims agreed with the Board. The Court explained that the regulation stated that the service-time requirement applied before separation.  

Otis v. United States, No. 23-483 (January 8, 2024)

SAME OPERATIVE FACTS: In this case, plaintiff filed a lawsuit contesting his military discharge in a United States District Court. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff filed another lawsuit – relying largely on the same operative facts – at the United States Court of Federal Claims. The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed his lawsuit because it relied ‘on the same operative facts’. The Court explained: (The question is whether the same evidence will maintain both actions. If the evidence which will sustain the second would have authorized a recovery in the first, under the allegations of the complaint, the first judgment is an absolute bar to the second.’)

Faerber v. United States, No. 20-509C (November 1, 2021)

SANCTUARY WAIVER: In this case, the United States Court of Federal Claims explained that while the sanctuary was not absolute, it protected reservists with at least 18 years of service from involuntary release – unless the release was approved by the Secretary. The Court also explained that Congress has determined that reservists may attain sanctuary while on orders under certain circumstances. In this case, the Marine Corps did not follow its own rules, and the Court ruled in plaintiff’s favor.

Horton v. United States, No. 24-562 (May 28, 2025)

SERIOUS MILITARY OR CIVILIAN OFFENSE: In this case, the United States Court of Federal Claims granted the Defendant’s motion for judgment on the administrative record. In Horton, Plaintiff argued that he was wrongfully discharged, in part, because credibility issues with a witness against him – but the Court pointed out that administrative separation board members were aware of it and made a proper credibility determination. Plaintiff also argued that the Army should have court-martialed him – but Plaintiff failed to identify any legal authority to support this proposition. Also, Plaintiff argued that the alleged assault was not charged under state law – and that he did not commit a serious military or civil offense. But the Court also rejected these arguments stating that the Army had a broad discretion to determine what was a serious offense, and the offenses he was charged with were in the manual for courts-martial. Based on this, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for judgment.

Grant v. United States, 24-1438 ( December 10, 2024 )

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS: This case highlights the interplay between the wrongful separation and medical retirement statutes of limitations - where the Court dismissed the action because plaintiff missed both. The general rule is that you have 6 years to bring an action against the United States: 6 years from the discharge or 6 years from the time when a board for correction of military records denied relief - for medical retirement. In this case, plaintiff separated in 2007 and he petitioned the board for correction of military records in 2010. He filed a lawsuit in 2024. 

Doyon v. United States, No. 19-1964C (January 13, 2021) 

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS: In this case, Plaintiff argued that he was entitled to medical retirement because he was unfit for duty and he challenged the Board for Correction of Naval Records’ decision denying his application. Plaintiff was discharged in 1968. When he applied for VA benefits, VA assigned him a 70 percent disability rating in 2015. Plaintiff filed his lawsuit in 2019. The Court found that the Board for Correction of Naval Records was not arbitrary and capricious.

Harold W. Van Allen v. United States, No. 05-166C (February 7, 2006) 

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS: In this case, the Court explained that military pay claims must be filed within 6 years from their accrual. When a claim accrues is a question of law that your experienced military counsel can advise you on.  Plaintiff was apparently discharged in 1978. The Board for Correction of Naval Records denied relief in 1986, and then in 2003. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking relief at the Court of Federal Claims. 

Hassay v. United States, No. No. 19-594C (January 27, 2025)

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS: In this case, a military disability case, the Government argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed because Plaintiff missed the 6-year statute of limitations under 28 USC 

§ 2501. The Government reasoned that because Plaintiff’s re-entry code was 1 at the time of discharge in 2002, Plaintiff missed the statute of limitations when he filed his lawsuit in 2019 because he was determined to be fit for duty and could reenlist. The Court disagreed and explained that the statute of limitations started when he presented the medical disability issues in front of the Board for Correction of Naval Records – which was in 2016. Based on this, the Court found the Government’s argument without merit, and denied the Government's motion to dismiss.

Patterson v. United States, No.  21-894C (June 11, 2021)  

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS: In Patterson v. United States, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's lawsuit contesting the Army Board for Correction of Military Records decision. The Court observed that Plaintiff was examined by a Physical Evaluation Board and discharged in 2001 and he filed a lawsuit in 2021. The Court also noted that Plaintiff had actual and constructive knowledge at the time of his discharge. Based on this, Plaintiff filed his action outside of the six-year statute of limitations.  

Prewitt v. United States, No. 22-1673 (February 10, 2025)

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS:  In Prewitt v. United States, Plaintiff challenged, in part, his Article 15 punishment that he received in 1969. He received the punishment for being ‘boisterous’, ‘loud’, and not going to his assigned place of duty; he lost $50. Plaintiff argued that he should not have been punished because he was on a medical profile. The United States Court of Federal Claims explained that this issue was beyond its 6-year jurisdiction. The Court explained that Plaintiff received the Article 15 punishment in 1969, but he filed a lawsuit in 2022 – over 50 years later.

Schussler v. United States, No. 14-690C (December 22, 2020)   

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS: In this case, Plaintiff's spouse missed the statutory deadline for annuity payments under the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records denied relief, and the Court could not grant any relief under the law. 

Sommers v. United States, No. 18-cv-00598 (January 25, 2021)  

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS: In this case, Plaintiff retired from the Army but filed a lawsuit alleging that he was forced out. He failed to timely appeal the Court's judgment and the Court denied his motion for leave to file notice of appeal out of time. 

Wild v. United States, No.  21-2225 (September 21, 2022)

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: In this case, Plaintiff argued in part that the administrative record did not show that his claims were fraudulent, and this is why the Board for Correction of Naval Records' decision was arbitrary and capricious. In this case, Plaintiff was indicted for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, subsequently investigated by Defense Criminal Investigative Service, and allowed to retire but reduced in rank for retirement purposes. The Court of Federal Claims disagreed. First the Court applied the presumption of regularity to the Board's decision. Next, the Court observed that the Board noted that it considered the evidence. The Court noted that Plaintiff failed to show that the Board erred. The Court concluded that the Board reasonably relied on the evidence and without more it would not disturb its decision. Based on this, the Court, granted the Government's motion to dismiss.

Manago v. United States, No. 22-629 C, (February 21, 2023)

SUPPLEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD: In this case, plaintiff requested to supplement the administrative record that were available to him when his petition at the Board for Correction of Military Records was pending. The Court denied the request. citing Barnick v. United States, 591 F.3d 1372, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (‘where evidence could have been submitted to a correction board and was not, the evidence is properly excluded by the Court of Federal Claims.’)

Wheeler v. United States, No. 22-133 (September 14, 2023)

SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN: In this case, the Government moved to dismiss the lawsuit arguing that Plaintiff did not file her complaint for her spouse's survivor benefits within 6 years. The Court denied the motion and stated that the benefits accrued at the time when she requested them - not when her spouse passed away.

Henrikson v. United States, 21-1899C (August 26, 2024)

UNFITNESS FOR DUTY: In this case, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed, in part, Plaintiff’s lawsuit and granted, in part, the government’s motion for judgment on the administrative record. In this case, the Board for Correction of Military Records denied relief, and Plaintiff challenged it. The evidence showed that even though Plaintiff was a pilot, his duties were administrative in nature. Additional evidence showed that Plaintiff’s medical condition (sinusitis) was not so severe that it would end his military career or prevent his deployment. The Court found that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Also, because none of Plaintiff's conditions were combat-connected, he was not entitled to  Combat Related Special Compensation.

Buholtz v. United States, No. 16-408C, (August 4, 2023)

VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT: In this case, Plaintiff was arrested and proposed for elimination from active duty. Plaintiff submitted a request to voluntarily retire, and to also medically retire. Based on the arrest and misconduct, the military retired Plaintiff and reduced his rank. The Court explained that calculated choices to avoid less pleasant decisions are not involuntary - and denied relief.

William Olas Bee, No. 21-1970 (August 23, 2024)

VOLUNTARY SEPARATION PROGRAM: In this case, plaintiff - who was diagnosed with PTSD and TBI - voluntarily accepted over $100,000 to separate under the Voluntary Separation Program in 2013. In 2018, he petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records for medical retirement. In 2019, the board denied relief. However, in 2021, he filed a lawsuit requesting to correct his records to indicate that he should have been medically retired under 10 U.S.C. 1201. The Court found that it had jurisdiction over this case because of the medical retirement claim. Had it been a wrongful separation claim - the Court would likely have no jurisdiction because the separation was voluntary.

Stahl v. United States, No. 18-496 (October 10, 2023)

WITHDRAWAL REQUEST: In this case, Plaintiff repeatedly requested to withdraw her separation request, but the Air Force failed to act on it and did not list any reasons for its denial. The Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records did not explain its decision. Subsequently, the Air Force rehired Plaintiff for the same position as a civilian.

Lowry v. United States, No. 20-343C (April 8, 2021) 

WRONGFUL DISCHARGE: In this case, the Court remanded Mr. Lowry's lawsuit to the Board for Correction of Naval Records to correct his records to show reinstatement and retirement. The Court found that the Navy failed to provide adequate notice as to the reasons for his separation. The Navy also improperly characterized his characterization of service.