CHAMNES V. MCHUGH , No. 12-1547 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-1547 Document: 17 NOTE: Page: 1 Filed: 11/08/2012 This order is nonprecedential. mlniteb ~tates <!Court of §ppeaIs for tbe jfeberaI <!Circuit GIRARD c. CHAMNESS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOHN MCHUGH, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, Defendant-Appellee. 2012-1547 Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in case no. 09-CV-2287, Judge Beryl A. Howell. ON MOTION Before SCHALL, Circuit Judge. ORDER The Secretary of the Army ("Secretary") moves for summary affirmance of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia's grant of summary judgment in its favor. Girard C. Chamness opposes. The Secretary replies. Case: 12-1547 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 11/08/2012 GIRARD CHAMNESS v. JOHN MCHUGH 2 "It is settled law that claims for military pay and allowances are actionable under the Tucker Act." Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153, 1155 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In addition to seeking correction of his military records, Chamness seeks "receipt of all back pay and allowances." Chamness also waived "any right or entitlement to recover monetary damages greater than $10,000 in this action. Accordingly, Chamness's claim was properly before the district court and is appropriately before this court on appeal. See Heisig, 719 F.2d at 1156 n.8. Summary disposition of a case "is appropriate, inter alia, when the position of one party is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists." Joshua v. United States 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The government has not shown that the instant case warrants the granting of summary affirmance. Upon consideration thereof, IT Is ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion for summary affirmance is denied. (2) Chamness's opening brief in this court is due within 30 days of the date of filing of this order. FOR THE COURT /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk s25

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.