disagree. Additionally, even if there were a valid policy, the United States and not the Veterans' Administration would be the only proper defendant in this suit. Id. Further, the six year statute of limitations contained in 38 U.S.C. § 784(b) operates to bar this claim.
Even if they were reviewable in this Court, Plaintiff's claims for benefits other than those provided for in 38 U.S.C. § 107(a) would have to be denied. In 38 U.S.C. § 107(a) Congress has set forth certain benefits available to Filipino veterans who served as recognized guerillas in World War II and their survivors. This section acts to bar claims for other types of benefits.
This Court also lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review determinations with regard to military service. 37 U.S.C. § 556. There is no allegation or indication here that any determination by the Secretary of the Army was arbitrary or capricious.
The United States has not waived sovereign immunity in this case. Therefore, neither the Veterans Administration nor the Department of the Army is a suable entity. Furthermore, Plaintiff has failed to state the grounds on which this Court's jurisdiction may be invoked contrary to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
Finally, even if Plaintiff's cause of action were otherwise sustainable, it would be barred by the six-year statute of limitations provided in 28 U.S.C. § 2401.
For the foregoing reasons, it is by the Court this 13th day of January, 1987,
ORDERED, that Defendant's Motion is GRANTED; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that Plaintiff's action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.