Background
Marine Corps Colonel Jefferson Kaster brought three causes of action concerning military benefits, including the effective date of his Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC). His second amended complaint acknowledged that the court had already resolved the second and third causes of action and included them solely to preserve issues for a potential appeal.
An intervening Supreme Court decision, Soto v. United States, held that the Barring Act’s six-year limitations period does not apply to CRSC claims. As a result, Kaster prevailed on the effective-date issue underlying his first cause of action, and DFAS paid him the additional CRSC it calculated was due for November 2013 through May 2026. The Court of Federal Claims then ordered Kaster to show cause why it should not dismiss the case and enter final judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The court concluded that all three causes of action in Kaster’s second amended complaint had been resolved. It rejected his argument that paragraph 132 kept alive or revived a claim that the Physical Evaluation Board or Council of Review Boards should have increased his disability rating from 50% to 70% for June 2017 through May 2018. The court had previously declined to consider that issue because Kaster did not raise it in his first amended complaint or opening brief, and neither party developed it in the latest round of administrative-record briefing. To the extent the claim was not moot, the court held that Kaster had waived it by failing to develop or pursue it.
The court directed the clerk to enter final judgment for the government and denied the parties’ cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record as moot. It stated that Kaster may pursue any dispute over DFAS’s calculation of his CRSC through DOHA, the CRSC Board, or another available government administrative process; it did not hold that administrative exhaustion was legally required.
Key Takeaways
- Kaster’s CRSC effective-date claim was resolved in his favor after Soto, and DFAS paid the additional amount it calculated was owed.
- The disability-rating issue was not a remaining claim because it had not been timely developed or pursued and, to the extent it was not moot, was waived.
- The court entered final judgment for the government and denied both pending administrative-record motions as moot.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates that adding an allegation to an amended complaint does not revive an issue the court previously declined to consider, particularly when the party does not later develop that issue in briefing. It also carefully distinguishes the completed litigation from any remaining disagreement over DFAS’s arithmetic: Kaster may use available administrative channels to challenge the calculation, but the order does not impose a mandatory exhaustion rule.