monetary relief directly related to a change in discharge status. The monetary requests in plaintiffs Complaint are for “pain and suffering” resulting from the claimed incident of sexual harassment. See id. at 8. Plaintiff does not claim that he was illegally discharged and is owed back pay related to his service or discharge. Nor may plaintiffs request for a change in his military records be entertained by this court as a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-06 (2006). The APA permits review of final agency action that seeks equitable relief other than money damages. 5 U.S.C. § 702. However, plaintiffs claim, viewed as an APA claim, does not fall within the jurisdiction of this court. See Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1313 (Fed.Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); McNabb v. United States, 54 Fed.Cl. 759, 767
holding that the board does not have jurisdiction to consider a claim which it previously adjudicated unless new and material evidence is presented holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider claims that have not been raised before the bia holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider an argument not presented to the board in a motion for reconsideration holding that the district court properly declined to consider an eighth amendment argument because section 3582c does not grant jurisdiction to consider extraneous resentencing issues holding that the uscfc does not have apa jurisdiction to consider nonmonetary suits to correct military records