Mortimer
This text of 652 F.2d 68 (Mortimer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This case for military back pay is before the court on defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff alleges in his pro se petition that his honorable discharge from the United States Marine Corps on January 8,1964, is ineffective, and he is therefore entitled to back pay, including reenlistment bonuses, allowances for clothing, and allotments for his spouse and dependent child.
[639]*639Plaintiff bases his claim on the fact that Form DD 214, the official document used for his discharge, does not contain his signature; this report simply states that plaintiff was unavailable for signature.
Plaintiffs petition was filed on September 26,1980, some 16 years after the alleged improper discharge. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2501 (1976), a claim is barred in this court unless the petition is filed within 6 years sifter such claim first accrues. This court has held that a claim for active duty pay on the ground of a wrongful or illegal discharge from the military service accrues at once upon the member’s discharge and a suit must be brought within 6 years of such date. Kirby v. United States, 201 Ct. Cl. 527 (1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 919 (1974). Plaintiffs suit was not filed within 6 years of his discharge.
rr is therefore ordered that defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiffs petition is dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
652 F.2d 68, 226 Ct. Cl. 638, 1981 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mortimer-cc-1981.