U.S.C. § 2501. 13 . It appears the regulation may have been mis-cited in the prior proceeding. In Lewis I, the Government cited 10 U.S.C. § 875(b) in its Motion For Summary Judgment as authorizing Plaintiff's discharge, however, the District Court cited to 10 U.S.C. § 874(b). See Exh. 4 at 14. 14 . The District Court construed Plaintiff’s Complaint as asserting two claims: a claim directly challenging his discharge, and a claim challenging the June 7, 1988 BCNR decision. See Lewis I, 1990 WL 454624, at *3. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, howev er, has held that a separate claim does not accrue when an administrative board denies relief. See Hurick v. Lehman, 782 F.2d 984, 987 (Fed.Cir.1986) ("[T]he failure of the Correction Board to set aside , 431-32 (2010) (<HOLDING>). 16 . Plaintiff also alleges that res judicata
holding that a security award separable from the merits of the arbitration which was rendered prior to a hearing on the merits was sufficiently final to be reviewed under the faa holding that a dismissal on limitations grounds is a judgment on the merits holding that a dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is an adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata holding that dismissal for failure to appear at a deposition is on the merits holding that a dismissal based on a jurisdictional statute of limitations does not constitute a judgmerit on the merits because a judgment on the merits can only be rendered after a court has jurisdiction