Case: 25-1443 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 03/26/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

PATRICK J. TYSON, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________

2025-1443 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:24-cv-00734-TMD, Judge Thompson M. Dietz. ______________________

ON MOTION ______________________

Before DYK, PROST, and CHEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER The United States moves to summarily affirm the final judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dis- missing Patrick J. Tyson’s complaint. Mr. Tyson opposes the motion and asks this court for “an indicative ruling stating that it would grant leave to amend the complaint if the case is remanded by the Federal Circuit.” ECF No. 7 Case: 25-1443 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 03/26/2025

2 TYSON v. US

at 1; see also ECF No. 8 at 1 (asking this court to “grant leave to amend [his complaint] if the case is remanded by the Federal Circuit”). Mr. Tyson was honorably discharged from the Navy in 1992. After discharge, Mr. Tyson applied to the Depart- ment of Veterans Affairs (DVA) under Title 38 of the United States Code, for disability benefits for service-con- nected injuries. He has received benefits with a 100% dis- ability rating since 2008 and has received special monthly compensation based on Housebound Status or Permanent Need for Regular Aid and Attendance since 2023. In May 2024, he filed suit at the Court of Federal Claims seeking to “grant and or compel” the “correct statu- tory monthly compensation Payments from Veteran Af- fairs, as well ALL retired Combat pay from the Department of [D]efense.” Appx9, ECF No. 5. Specifically, he argued he should receive “the Higher Special Monthly Compensa- tion for, wartime Total disability, Housebound, Special Aid and Attendance, Combat Retired Pay (CRDP), Combat-Re- lated Special Compensation (CRSC), of which [he] should have been automatically assessed[.]” Appx8. In December 2024, the Court of Federal Claims granted the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of ju- risdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It explained that Congress created an ex- clusive scheme for handling claims relating to service ben- efits through the DVA and then the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which excludes jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims. It also concluded that Mr. Tyson had failed to state a claim for relief for CRDP and CRSC because he lacked military retiree status. Summary affirmance is appropriate because dismissal was “so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substan- tial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct that any Case: 25-1443 Document: 10 Page: 3 Filed: 03/26/2025

TYSON v. US 3

challenge to the handling of his DVA benefits claims lies outside of its jurisdiction. See Prestidge v. United States, 611 F. App’x 979, 982–83 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (concluding that the remedial scheme to handle veterans’ benefits claims precluded Tucker Act jurisdiction). It was also clearly cor- rect that, in the absence of military retiree status, Mr. Ty- son could not receive CRDP or CRSC pay. See 10 U.S.C. §§ 1413a(c), 1414(a)(1) (limiting pay to “retiree[s]”). We deny the request to remand because Mr. Tyson’s proposed amended complaint does not cure the deficiencies that bar relief in the Court of Federal Claims. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The United States’s motion is granted. The judg- ment of the United States Court of Federal Claims is af- firmed. (2) All other pending motions are denied. (3) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT

March 26, 2025 Date