context: Plaintiff contends that his filing an application with the DOT BCMR on November 3, 2006, renders his claim timely. Plaintiff reasons that this filing tolled the court's general statute of limitations. Nevertheless, it is a canon of military-pay jurisprudence that seeking permissive administrative review does not toll the statute of limitations in the Tucker Act.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 333 F.3d 1295, 1312
citation_a.parenthetical: "[I]t is well settled that the statute of limitations for Tucker Act claims is not tolled by the claimant's exercise of his right to seek permissive administrative review of his claim."
citation_a.sentence: See Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1312 (Fed.Cir.2003) (“[I]t is well settled that the statute of limitations for Tucker Act claims is not tolled by the claimant’s exercise of his right to seek permissive administrative review of his claim.”); see also Brighton Village Assocs. v. United States, 52 F.3d 1056, 1060 (Fed.Cir. 1995) (holding that administrative challenges “did not postpone accrual of ... claims”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 52 F.3d 1056, 1060
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that administrative challenges "did not postpone accrual of ... claims"
citation_b.sentence: See Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1312 (Fed.Cir.2003) (“[I]t is well settled that the statute of limitations for Tucker Act claims is not tolled by the claimant’s exercise of his right to seek permissive administrative review of his claim.”); see also Brighton Village Assocs. v. United States, 52 F.3d 1056, 1060 (Fed.Cir. 1995) (holding that administrative challenges “did not postpone accrual of ... claims”).