context: Once James' term of enlistment ended, he no longer was entitled to pay under 37 U.S.C. SS 204, because he was no longer a service member.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 988 F.2d 1199, 1208
citation_a.parenthetical: "[A]n enlisted serviceman who has been improperly discharged is entitled to recover pay and allowances only to the date on which his term of enlistment would otherwise have expired had he not been so discharged."
citation_a.sentence: See Testan, 424 U.S. at 402, 96 S.Ct. 948 (“The established rule is that one is not entitled to the benefit of a position until he has been duly appointed to it.”); see also Dodson v. United States, 988 F.2d 1199, 1208 (Fed.Cir.1993) (“[A]n enlisted serviceman who has been improperly discharged is entitled to recover pay and allowances only to the date on which his term of enlistment would otherwise have expired had he not been so discharged.”). Thus, James could not have relied on § 204 as a money-mandating statute supporting Tucker Act jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims.
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: "The established rule is that one is not entitled to the benefit of a position until he has been duly appointed to it."
citation_b.sentence: See Testan, 424 U.S. at 402, 96 S.Ct. 948 (“The established rule is that one is not entitled to the benefit of a position until he has been duly appointed to it.”); see also Dodson v. United States, 988 F.2d 1199, 1208 (Fed.Cir.1993) (“[A]n enlisted serviceman who has been improperly discharged is entitled to recover pay and allowances only to the date on which his term of enlistment would otherwise have expired had he not been so discharged.”). Thus, James could not have relied on § 204 as a money-mandating statute supporting Tucker Act jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims.