Hilaire v. United States ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Case: 21-2295    Document: 20     Page: 1   Filed: 02/09/2022
    NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    ______________________
    CLIFFORD HILAIRE,
    Plaintiff-Appellant
    v.
    UNITED STATES,
    Defendant-Appellee
    ______________________
    2021-2295
    ______________________
    Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
    in No. 1:20-cv-02023-MBH, Senior Judge Marian Blank
    Horn.
    ______________________
    Decided: February 9, 2022
    ______________________
    CLIFFORD HILAIRE, Waldorf, MD, pro se.
    ERIC JOHN SINGLEY, Commercial Litigation Branch,
    Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
    ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
    BRIAN M. BOYNTON, DEBORAH ANN BYNUM, PATRICIA M.
    MCCARTHY.
    ______________________
    Before NEWMAN, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
    Case: 21-2295     Document: 20     Page: 2    Filed: 02/09/2022
    2                                               HILAIRE   v. US
    PER CURIAM.
    Pro se Appellant Clifford Hilaire appeals a judgment
    by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims dismissing Hilaire’s
    action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    On August 31, 2005, Hilaire enlisted in the United
    States Air Force for a six-year term as an aerial porter.
    J.A. 57–59. The record shows that Hilaire, having no prior
    service record, was entitled to a non-prior service (“NPS”)
    enlistment bonus of $7833.01, which he should have re-
    ceived at the first six anniversaries of his enlistment in the
    amounts of $1333.33, $1333.33, $1333.33, $1166.34,
    $1333.33, and $1333.35, respectively. J.A. 91, 100–01.
    Hilaire did not receive any NPS enlistment bonus pay-
    ments. In 2014, he filed a request with the Air Force Board
    for the Correction of Military Records (“Board”), seeking to
    receive his bonus payments retroactively. See J.A. 52–54.
    On August 28, 2015, the Board agreed that Hilaire quali-
    fied for a NPS enlistment bonus contingent on his submis-
    sion of an English-translated version of his high school
    diploma. Id. In March 2016, Hilaire submitted the re-
    quested diploma. J.A. 63, 69.
    On January 13, 2020, Hilaire submitted a new applica-
    tion to the Board seeking to have his bonus distributed to
    his thrift savings plan (“TSP”) account. J.A. 77–78. In
    April 2020, while that application remained pending, the
    Air Force informed Hilaire that it could not distribute the
    money to his TSP account, but that payment would be pro-
    cessed if he provided direct deposit information via Stand-
    ard Form 1199a. J.A. 75–76. Hilaire refused to provide
    direct deposit information at that time because he believed
    that doing so would interfere with his request pending be-
    fore the Board. J.A. 73–75. Subsequently, in an undated
    letter, the Board denied Hilaire’s request to have his bonus
    Case: 21-2295      Document: 20   Page: 3    Filed: 02/09/2022
    HILAIRE   v. US                                           3
    retroactively applied to his TSP account because the re-
    quest was “not viable.” J.A. 79.
    On December 22, 2020, Hilaire initiated this action in
    the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, seeking an order that the
    Air Force pay Hilaire his bonus, plus interest, into his TSP
    account. See J.A. 1–5, 20–21. On August 15, 2021, the
    Court of Federal Claims dismissed the action for lack of
    subject-matter jurisdiction after determining that: (1) to
    the extent Hilaire asserts an entitlement to his enlistment
    bonus, the issue is conceded by the government and moot;
    (2) Hilaire is not entitled to having the money distributed
    to his TSP account; (3) Hilaire is not entitled to interest;
    and (4) to the extent Hilaire brought his action pursuant to
    the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), the Court of
    Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction. J.A. 1–17. Hilaire ap-
    peals.    We have jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1295
    (a)(3).
    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    We review the Court of Federal Claims’s legal conclu-
    sions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. Ca-
    sitas Mun. Water Dist. v. United States, 
    708 F.3d 1340
    ,
    1351 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Estate of Hage v. United
    States, 
    687 F.3d 1281
    , 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Whether the
    Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed a complaint for
    lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law,
    which we review de novo. Anaheim Gardens v. United
    States, 
    444 F.3d 1309
    , 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
    DISCUSSION
    Hilaire contends that he is entitled to have his enlist-
    ment bonus deposited into his TSP account because he
    elected to designate TSP contributions in 2016 and because
    he submitted his high school diploma to the Air Force in
    March 2016. Appellant’s Br. 9–10. According to Hilaire,
    he is entitled to this specific relief pursuant to the APA
    Case: 21-2295     Document: 20      Page: 4     Filed: 02/09/2022
    4                                                 HILAIRE   v. US
    because the Air Force has taken an unreasonable amount
    of time to pay Hilaire his bonus. 
    Id.
    Whether Hilaire is entitled to retroactively receive his
    bonus into his TSP account depends on his TSP contribu-
    tion elections for the years in which he would have received
    the bonus payments, not the year in which he submitted
    his diploma. 
    5 C.F.R. § 1605.13
    (b)(1) (“The participant will
    be entitled to make up contributions for the period covered
    by the back pay award or retroactive pay adjustment only
    if for that period . . . [t]he participant had designated a per-
    centage of basic pay to be contributed to the TSP.”). The
    record shows that Hilaire made no TSP elections for the
    first six years of his service, i.e., the years he should have
    received his NPS enlistment bonus payments. J.A. 80–82.
    Consequently, Hilaire is not entitled to retroactive deposits
    into his TSP account. See 
    5 C.F.R. § 1605.13
    (b)(1).
    Additionally, the Court of Federal Claims does not
    have jurisdiction over APA claims; such claims must be
    brought before a federal district court. Lion Raisins, Inc.
    v. United States, 
    416 F.3d 1356
    , 1370 n.11 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
    (citing Crocker v. United States, 
    125 F.3d 1475
    , 1476
    (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[N]o APA review is available in the Court
    of Federal Claims.”). Thus, insofar as Hilaire argues that
    “[t]his lawsuit was about a review under the Administra-
    tive Procedure Act (APA),” Appellant’s Br. 10, the Court of
    Federal Claims properly dismissed this action for lack of
    subject-matter jurisdiction.
    Hilaire maintains that he is entitled to a $15,000 NPS
    enlistment bonus because in June 2016, the Air Force be-
    gan processing a bonus of $15,000. J.A. 70. The govern-
    ment speculates this was an administrative error that
    occurred because the maximum allowable NPS enlistment
    bonus, according to applicable regulations, had increased
    from $8000 to $15,000 in October 2005. See Appellee’s
    Br. 4 n.2; J.A. 71–72. Hilaire argued before the Court of
    Federal Claims that he was entitled to the higher
    Case: 21-2295      Document: 20    Page: 5   Filed: 02/09/2022
    HILAIRE   v. US                                           5
    maximum bonus of $15,000 because he attended basic
    training after October 2005. See Hilaire v. United States,
    
    2021 WL 4144994
    , at *11 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 15, 2021); J.A. 15.
    However, the maximum bonus to which Hilaire is entitled
    is based on the date of his enlistment—in this case, Au-
    gust 31, 2005. See Air Force Instruction 36-2638, Air Force
    Reserve Enlisted Incentives (Jan. 26, 2005) [hereinafter,
    AFI 36-2638]; J.A. 91. Based on the statute and regulation
    in effect on Hilaire’s enlistment date, he is eligible for a
    NPS enlistment bonus no greater than $8000. See
    37 U.S.C. § 308c (2004) (statute setting maximum of
    $10,000 for NPS enlistment bonuses, subject to applicable
    regulations); AFI 36-2638 (regulation setting maximum of
    $8000 for NPS enlistment bonuses).
    The record is unclear as to why the Air Force has not
    paid Hilaire the NPS bonus to which it agrees he is enti-
    tled. Apparently, the Air Force should pay Hilaire,
    promptly, upon his completion of a Standard Form 1199a.
    Nonetheless, the Court of Federal Claims properly dis-
    missed this case. Hilaire cannot establish any entitlement
    to a principal bonus greater than $8000, to interest, or to
    having his bonus paid into his TSP account. The judgment
    of the Court of Federal Claims is affirmed.
    AFFIRMED
    COSTS
    No costs.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-2295

Filed Date: 2/9/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 2/10/2022