arguments that VA, “acting as an agent for the Department of the Army”, breached its “contract” with him to provide education benefits in return for his service (R. at 28; Br. at 4-7), the Court has previously held in Harvey v. Brown that, even if it had determined that common-law contract principles applied to the enlistment agreement there at issue, “the remedy for [such a contract] breach in this case cannot be the relief that the veteran seeks, a direction by the Court that the unauthorized enlistment contract be honored through specific performance, because the veteran is not eligible to receive such beneñts under statutory law.” Harvey, 6 Vet.App. 416, 424 (1994) (emphasis added) (citing United States v. Larionoff, 431 U.S. 864, 869, 97 S.Ct. 2150, 53 L.Ed.2d 48 (1977) (<HOLDING>); Bell v. United States, 366 U.S. 393, 401, 81
holding that the trial court should have dismissed the employees breach of contract claim holding that federal statutes and regulations can form the basis of a breach of contract claim if expressly incorporated into the contract holding that where question is breach of enlistmentextension bonus agreement courts should refer to statutes and regulations rather than ordinary contract principles recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding immaterial breach did not constitute breach of contract