Bryan James Strother v. David S. Baldwin, Adjutant General, California Army National Guard, et al.

This Petition seeks to end recoupment of accrued benefits, pay and bonus monies which are honorably earned in good faith and overturn the Feres doctrine. Even in cases of court-martial this Nation’s Article III courts have consistently held that accrued and vested U.S. Military pay is textually committed property1. Yet U.S. Military personnel are routinely subjected to recoupment of accrued property, including bonus monies offered in enlistment contracts. This Court has defined plain language on multiple occasions and the Feres doctrine conflicts with all of them: In regard to U.S. service personnel the Feres doctrine has single-handedly managed to undermined the plain language of the Federal Torts Claim Act (FCTA) leading to a host of absurd consequences and confusion. I. Regardless of the presence or absence of any statutory scheme do enlistment contracts become entitlements vested upon commitment at the decision point United States v. Larionoff, 431 U.S. 864, (1977) or are they unilateral gratuities non-binding upon the United States Department of Defense and its Branches. II. There is zero statutory authority or legislative intent to support the Feres doctrine notion of "incident to service" exception. It came out of thin air to usurp the plain language of the FTCA and should be invalidated in favor of new rule in line with 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (j) (k). 1 U. S. v. Larionoff, 431 U.S. 864, 869 (1977), Bell v. U.S. , 366 393, 401 (1961), In re Grimley, 137 U.S. 147, 151-152 (1890), Costello v. U. S. 587 F.2d 424, (9th Cir. 1978) (en banc).