This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case involves the Combat‑Related Special Compensation (CRSC) statute, and the petitioner argues that the Barring Act does not apply.
The Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Background and question before the Court
According to Petitioner, the case arose over whether the CRSC statute grants the secretary of a military department authority to settle claims, which would make the Barring Act inapplicable.
The petitioner argues that subsection (d) of the CRSC statute authorizes the secretary to consider eligibility and to determine the validity of a claim.
The petitioner says the waiver provision does not come into play.
The government argues that other statutes are not part of this case because reading Section 1413a literally could destabilize military pay.
The government contends that a statute that authorizes an official to determine the validity and amount due on claims is a settlement authority.
- [1] 3ea44f18d830b140e204-r1-5562cf6cd09385c8.pdf, p. 4
- [2] 3ea44f18d830b140e204-r1-5562cf6cd09385c8.pdf, p. 5
- [3] 3ea44f18d830b140e204-r1-5562cf6cd09385c8.pdf, p. 5
- [4] 3ea44f18d830b140e204-r1-5562cf6cd09385c8.pdf, p. 18
- [5] 3ea44f18d830b140e204-r1-5562cf6cd09385c8.pdf, p. 9
- [6] 3ea44f18d830b140e204-r1-5562cf6cd09385c8.pdf, p. 72
What each side argues
Petitioner
According to Petitioner, the CRSC statute grants the secretary authority to settle claims, so the Barring Act does not apply.
According to Petitioner, subsection (d) authorizes the secretary to consider eligibility and to determine claim validity.
According to Petitioner, the waiver provision does not come into play.
According to Petitioner, to “settle” a claim the statute must contain a hallmark formulation; examples were provided.
Respondent
According to Government, other statutes are not part of this case because reading Section 1413a literally could destabilize military pay.
According to Government, the GAO and comptroller‑general decisions are the authorities for implementing the statute.
According to Government, a statute that authorizes an official to determine the validity and amount due on claims is a settlement authority.
What happened at oral argument
Counsel for the petitioner was Tacy F. Flint, Esquire, and counsel for the respondent was Caroline A. Flynn, Assistant to the Solicitor General.
What the Court decided
The Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 304eb174d39568880113-r1-5e7c6d18dd0ae606.pdfopinion
- 3ea44f18d830b140e204-r1-5562cf6cd09385c8.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 18, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.