Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

William A. Clark, James P. Davern, Robert v. United States

August 29, 2011

WILLIAM A. CLARK, JAMES P. DAVERN, ROBERT E. FREEBURG, WILLIE R. JOHNSON, ROBERT A. MUSTIN, CAROL RISSER, JOHN DOES 1-4, AND JANE DOES 2-3, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
UNITED STATES, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.



Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in case no. 00-CV-644, Judge Nancy B. Firestone.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Rader, Chief Judge.

Before RADER, Chief Judge, PROST and O'MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

In a class action by National Guard members, the United States Court of Federal Claims found on summary judgment that plaintiffs were not eligible to receive compensation for time spent taking correspondence training courses under 37 U.S.C. § 206. Clark v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 756 (Fed. Cl. 2010). Because the Court of Federal Claims correctly interpreted the scope of this court's mandate and properly granted summary judgment in favor of the government, this court affirms.

I

William A. Clark ("Clark") is a retired staff sergeant in the Alabama National Guard. In 2000, Clark filed a class action complaint in the Court of Federal Claims on behalf of himself and other similarly situated Army and Air National Guard members. Clark alleged that the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force required him and the other National Guard members to take certain correspondence courses to keep their positions or to advance in rank. Therefore, he sought compensation for the time spent taking these required courses. At the time Clark filed his complaint, 37 U.S.C. § 206 provided:

(a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, and to the extent provided for by appropriations, a member of the National Guard or a member of a reserve component . . . is entitled to compensation . . .

(1) for each regular period of instruction, or period of appropriate duty, at which the member is engaged for at least two hours, including that performed on a Sunday or holiday;

(2) for the performance of such other equivalent training, instruction, duty, or appropriate duties, as the Secretary may prescribe . . . .

(b) The regulations prescribed under subsection

(a) for each uniformed service, the National Guard, and each of the classes of organization of the reserve components within each uniformed service, may be different. The Secretary concerned shall, for the National Guard and each of the classes of organization within each uniformed service, prescribe -

(1) minimum standards that must be met before an assembly for drill or other equivalent period of training, instruction, duty, or appropriate duties may be credited for pay purposes . . . .

(d) This section does not authorize compensation for work or study performed by a member of a reserve component in connection with correspondence courses of an armed force.

37 U.S.C. § 206 (1997) (emphases added).

National Guard members of each state must also enlist as members of the National Guard of the United States, a reserve component of the Army and the Air Force. 10 U.S.C. § 12107(b)(1). The trial court found that Clark was a member of a reserve component and held that § 206(d) barred him from receiving compensation. Clark v. United States, 50 Fed. Cl. 727, 732 (Fed. Cl. 2001). Accordingly, the trial ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.