Background
Former Marine Aderinola H. Osifeso, proceeding without counsel, alleged that she was sexually assaulted by a superior officer in 2010. She claimed that a Sexual Assault Response Coordinator told her in September 2013 that the government would compensate her for civil damages related to the assault, but that she never received payment.
Osifeso also alleged that she was separated from the military in August 2014 and that the Department of Veterans Affairs found her 100% service-connected disabled in July 2020. She sought military pay, disability-related compensation, and damages for an alleged implied-in-fact contract with the United States.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Ryan T. Holte granted the government’s motion to dismiss. The court held that Osifeso had not carried her burden to establish jurisdiction over her alleged contract claim because her pleadings did not state when the claimed breach accrued, and she offered no evidence showing that it accrued within the Court of Federal Claims’ six-year jurisdictional limitations period.
The court also dismissed the military-pay claim as untimely because a back-pay claim challenging a discharge accrues when the service member is discharged; Osifeso was discharged in August 2014 but sued in September 2025. Her disability-pay allegations were dismissed because she did not allege that an appropriate military board had denied or refused to hear a disability-retirement claim, and she did not identify a money-mandating statute or regulation. Separately, the court held that the complaint did not plausibly allege an implied-in-fact contract because it alleged neither consideration nor facts showing the coordinator had actual authority to bind the government.
Key Takeaways
- A Court of Federal Claims plaintiff bears the burden to show that a claim accrued within the Tucker Act’s six-year limitations period.
- A military back-pay claim based on an allegedly wrongful discharge accrues upon discharge, not with each missed payment.
- General references to military and disability compensation frameworks do not satisfy the requirement to identify a money-mandating source of law.
Why It Matters
The order underscores that liberal construction of pro se pleadings does not excuse jurisdictional defects. Plaintiffs seeking pay or disability-related relief in the Court of Federal Claims must identify a money-mandating legal source and plead facts establishing both accrual and timeliness.
The court denied leave for a second amended complaint as futile, finding that Osifeso’s proposed amendment still did not cure the timeliness or money-mandating-source deficiencies.