Lieutenant Colonel Willie L. Godwin, Jr., Plaintiff-appellant, v. the United States, Defendant-appellee, 67 F.3d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1995)

Lt. Col. Godwin was a reserve officer in the Special Operations Command. He was denied retention, for reasons that he challenges. He appealed from a ruling of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, wherein the Board held that his argument that the Army had not complied with the provision of 10 U.S.C. § 167(e) (2) (J) which relates to monitoring by the SOC commander of retention of special operations forces officers, was not a ground of relief. The United States Claims Court¹  dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted, relying on Banks v. Garrett, 901 F.2d 1084 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 821 (1990). The facts with respect to Lt. Col. Godwin have not been distinguished from those of Capt. Banks. Although appellant argues cogently that Banks was wrongly decided, this precedent remains in force. See also, e.g., Dehne v. United States, 970 F.2d 890 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (relief in form of back pay for improperly transferred reservist not available under Tucker Act). Accordingly, the decision is affirmed.