George Baldwin Hutchinson, Jr. v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
GEORGE BALDWIN HUTCHINSON, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1269
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal
Claims in No. 1:20-cv-00895-ZNS, Judge Zachary N.
Somers.
______________________
Decided: June 6, 2025
______________________
G EORGE HUTCHINSON, J R., Lithia Springs, GA, pro se.
N ATALEE A. ALLENBAUGH , Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of
Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also
represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY , D OUGLAS K. MICKLE.
______________________
Case: 24-1269 Document: 75 Page: 1 Filed: 06/06/2025

-- 1 of 5 --

HUTCHINSON v. US 2
P ER CURIAM
George Baldwin Hutchinson, Jr., appeals pro se from
a decision of the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”)
upholding a decision of the Army Board for Correction of
Military Records (“ABCMR”) denying various claims for
compensation in connection with Mr. Hutchinson’s service
in the Army. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Hutchinson joined the Army in 1994 as a Signal
Support Systems Specialist and was commissioned as a
Second Lieutenant in the Reserve Component in 2004. In
April 2015, the Army determined that Mr. Hutchinson
was unfit for continued service and that he qualified for a
70% disability rating for PTSD. The Physical Evaluation
Board subsequently recommended that Mr. Hutchinson
be placed on Temporary Disability Retirement List: He
retired effective July 15, 2015, after 19 years, 3 months,
and 27 days of service.
In October 2015, a Promotion Selection Board recom-
mended Mr. Hutchinson for promotion to the rank of
Major. In November 2015, the Army granted
Mr. Hutchinson Combat Related Special Compensation
for PTSD at a rating of 70%, which was later lowered to
50% after the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”)
adjusted Mr. Hutchinson’s PTSD disability rating to 50%.
In August 2019, the Army removed Mr. Hutchinson from
the Temporary Disability Retirement List and perma-
nently, medically retired him with a 70% disability rating.
During this process, he apparently received a certificate of
retirement indicating a rank as Major, although the
official military order documenting his removal from the
Case: 24-1269 Document: 75 Page: 2 Filed: 06/06/2025

-- 2 of 5 --

HUTCHINSON v. US 3
Temporary Disability Retirement List noted his rank as
Captain. Compare S. App’x 68, with S. App’x 117.1
In August 2021, the ABCMR recommended that
Mr. Hutchinson’s military records be corrected to reflect a
retirement rank of Major, effective September 25, 2015
(the date the President signed the promotion selection
list). After the ABCMR denied additional relief,
Mr. Hutchinson filed a complaint in the Claims Court,
seeking additional compensation on a variety of grounds.
On November 30, 2023, the Claims Court granted the
Army’s motion for judgment on the administrative record.
Mr. Hutchinson subsequently filed this timely appeal. We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
We review a decision of the Claims Court granting or
denying a motion for judgment on the administrative
record without deference, applying the same standard of
review as the Claims Court. Barnick v. United States,
591 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We review the
Claims Court’s findings of fact for clear error. Melendez
Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed. Cir.
2011). On appeal, Mr. Hutchinson raises several argu-
ments, some of which he admitted were moot at the
ABCMR level. His primary four arguments are as fol-
lows.
First, Mr. Hutchinson argues that his Combat Related
Special Compensation should be based on the Army’s
disability rating rather than the VA’s. Combat Related
Special Compensation is calculated using a servicemem-
ber’s VA disability rating. See DOD Financial Manage-
ment Regulation Vol. 7B, Chap. 63 §§ 8.1, 8.2, 8.5.
1 Citations to “S. App’x” are to the Government’s in-
formal supplemental appendix.
Case: 24-1269 Document: 75 Page: 3 Filed: 06/06/2025

-- 3 of 5 --

HUTCHINSON v. US 4
Because Mr. Hutchinson does not dispute that his VA
rating for PTSD is 50%, he was not entitled to a calcula-
tion at the 70% rate.
Second, Mr. Hutchinson argues the Claims Court and
ABCMR erred in determining that Mr. Hutchinson is
ineligible for Concurrent Retirement and Disability Pay.
The statute authorizing Concurrent Retirement and
Disability Pay expressly provides that servicemembers
retired due to permanent disability with less than
20 years of service are ineligible for Concurrent Retire-
ment and Disability Pay. 10 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(2). While
the parties disagree as to the precise length of
Mr. Hutchinson’s service, neither asserts that his period
of creditable time was 20 years or more. Compare
S. App’x 107 with S. App’x 386.
Third, Mr. Hutchinson argues that he is entitled to
backdating of retirement benefits at the rank of Major
before the date his promotion was approved by the Presi-
dent. He is not eligible for benefits at the rank of Major
before the date his promotion was signed by the Presi-
dent, and we lack the authority to retroactively promote
him to a rank for which he had not previously been duly
appointed. Dysart v. United States, 369 F.3d 1303, 1317
(Fed. Cir. 2004).
Fourth, Mr. Hutchinson argues that 10 U.S.C. § 1372
entitles him to further retroactive promotion and benefits.
Mr. Hutchinson fails to identify any support in the record
for the proposition that he was actually and lawfully
promoted to any higher position, a requirement for receipt
of benefits at a higher rank. See Campbell v. United
States, 2022 WL 2824674, at *2 (Fed. Cir. July 20, 2022).
Case: 24-1269 Document: 75 Page: 4 Filed: 06/06/2025

-- 4 of 5 --

HUTCHINSON v. US 5
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Hutchinson’s remaining ar-
guments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing
reasons, the judgment of the Claims Court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1269 Document: 75 Page: 5 Filed: 06/06/2025

-- 5 of 5 --