Case: 21-2295 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 02/09/2022
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CLIFFORD HILAIRE,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2021-2295
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:20-cv-02023-MBH, Senior Judge Marian Blank
Horn.
______________________
Decided: February 9, 2022
______________________
CLIFFORD HILAIRE, Waldorf, MD, pro se.
ERIC JOHN SINGLEY, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, DEBORAH ANN BYNUM, PATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY.
______________________
Before NEWMAN, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
Case: 21-2295 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 02/09/2022
2 HILAIRE v. US
PER CURIAM.
Pro se Appellant Clifford Hilaire appeals a judgment
by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims dismissing Hilaire’s
action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On August 31, 2005, Hilaire enlisted in the United
States Air Force for a six-year term as an aerial porter.
J.A. 57–59. The record shows that Hilaire, having no prior
service record, was entitled to a non-prior service (“NPS”)
enlistment bonus of $7833.01, which he should have re-
ceived at the first six anniversaries of his enlistment in the
amounts of $1333.33, $1333.33, $1333.33, $1166.34,
$1333.33, and $1333.35, respectively. J.A. 91, 100–01.
Hilaire did not receive any NPS enlistment bonus pay-
ments. In 2014, he filed a request with the Air Force Board
for the Correction of Military Records (“Board”), seeking to
receive his bonus payments retroactively. See J.A. 52–54.
On August 28, 2015, the Board agreed that Hilaire quali-
fied for a NPS enlistment bonus contingent on his submis-
sion of an English-translated version of his high school
diploma. Id. In March 2016, Hilaire submitted the re-
quested diploma. J.A. 63, 69.
On January 13, 2020, Hilaire submitted a new applica-
tion to the Board seeking to have his bonus distributed to
his thrift savings plan (“TSP”) account. J.A. 77–78. In
April 2020, while that application remained pending, the
Air Force informed Hilaire that it could not distribute the
money to his TSP account, but that payment would be pro-
cessed if he provided direct deposit information via Stand-
ard Form 1199a. J.A. 75–76. Hilaire refused to provide
direct deposit information at that time because he believed
that doing so would interfere with his request pending be-
fore the Board. J.A. 73–75. Subsequently, in an undated
letter, the Board denied Hilaire’s request to have his bonus
Case: 21-2295 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 02/09/2022
HILAIRE v. US 3
retroactively applied to his TSP account because the re-
quest was “not viable.” J.A. 79.
On December 22, 2020, Hilaire initiated this action in
the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, seeking an order that the
Air Force pay Hilaire his bonus, plus interest, into his TSP
account. See J.A. 1–5, 20–21. On August 15, 2021, the
Court of Federal Claims dismissed the action for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction after determining that: (1) to
the extent Hilaire asserts an entitlement to his enlistment
bonus, the issue is conceded by the government and moot;
(2) Hilaire is not entitled to having the money distributed
to his TSP account; (3) Hilaire is not entitled to interest;
and (4) to the extent Hilaire brought his action pursuant to
the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), the Court of
Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction. J.A. 1–17. Hilaire ap-
peals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(3).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the Court of Federal Claims’s legal conclu-
sions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. Ca-
sitas Mun. Water Dist. v. United States,
708 F.3d 1340,
1351 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Estate of Hage v. United
States,
687 F.3d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Whether the
Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed a complaint for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law,
which we review de novo. Anaheim Gardens v. United
States,
444 F.3d 1309, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
DISCUSSION
Hilaire contends that he is entitled to have his enlist-
ment bonus deposited into his TSP account because he
elected to designate TSP contributions in 2016 and because
he submitted his high school diploma to the Air Force in
March 2016. Appellant’s Br. 9–10. According to Hilaire,
he is entitled to this specific relief pursuant to the APA
Case: 21-2295 Document: 20 Page: 4 Filed: 02/09/2022
4 HILAIRE v. US
because the Air Force has taken an unreasonable amount
of time to pay Hilaire his bonus.
Id.
Whether Hilaire is entitled to retroactively receive his
bonus into his TSP account depends on his TSP contribu-
tion elections for the years in which he would have received
the bonus payments, not the year in which he submitted
his diploma.
5 C.F.R. § 1605.13(b)(1) (“The participant will
be entitled to make up contributions for the period covered
by the back pay award or retroactive pay adjustment only
if for that period . . . [t]he participant had designated a per-
centage of basic pay to be contributed to the TSP.”). The
record shows that Hilaire made no TSP elections for the
first six years of his service, i.e., the years he should have
received his NPS enlistment bonus payments. J.A. 80–82.
Consequently, Hilaire is not entitled to retroactive deposits
into his TSP account. See
5 C.F.R. § 1605.13(b)(1).
Additionally, the Court of Federal Claims does not
have jurisdiction over APA claims; such claims must be
brought before a federal district court. Lion Raisins, Inc.
v. United States,
416 F.3d 1356, 1370 n.11 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(citing Crocker v. United States,
125 F.3d 1475, 1476
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[N]o APA review is available in the Court
of Federal Claims.”). Thus, insofar as Hilaire argues that
“[t]his lawsuit was about a review under the Administra-
tive Procedure Act (APA),” Appellant’s Br. 10, the Court of
Federal Claims properly dismissed this action for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction.
Hilaire maintains that he is entitled to a $15,000 NPS
enlistment bonus because in June 2016, the Air Force be-
gan processing a bonus of $15,000. J.A. 70. The govern-
ment speculates this was an administrative error that
occurred because the maximum allowable NPS enlistment
bonus, according to applicable regulations, had increased
from $8000 to $15,000 in October 2005. See Appellee’s
Br. 4 n.2; J.A. 71–72. Hilaire argued before the Court of
Federal Claims that he was entitled to the higher
Case: 21-2295 Document: 20 Page: 5 Filed: 02/09/2022
HILAIRE v. US 5
maximum bonus of $15,000 because he attended basic
training after October 2005. See Hilaire v. United States,
2021 WL 4144994, at *11 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 15, 2021); J.A. 15.
However, the maximum bonus to which Hilaire is entitled
is based on the date of his enlistment—in this case, Au-
gust 31, 2005. See Air Force Instruction 36-2638, Air Force
Reserve Enlisted Incentives (Jan. 26, 2005) [hereinafter,
AFI 36-2638]; J.A. 91. Based on the statute and regulation
in effect on Hilaire’s enlistment date, he is eligible for a
NPS enlistment bonus no greater than $8000. See
37 U.S.C. § 308c (2004) (statute setting maximum of
$10,000 for NPS enlistment bonuses, subject to applicable
regulations); AFI 36-2638 (regulation setting maximum of
$8000 for NPS enlistment bonuses).
The record is unclear as to why the Air Force has not
paid Hilaire the NPS bonus to which it agrees he is enti-
tled. Apparently, the Air Force should pay Hilaire,
promptly, upon his completion of a Standard Form 1199a.
Nonetheless, the Court of Federal Claims properly dis-
missed this case. Hilaire cannot establish any entitlement
to a principal bonus greater than $8000, to interest, or to
having his bonus paid into his TSP account. The judgment
of the Court of Federal Claims is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
