military discharge does not give rise to a separate and independent claim, since that action is merely ancillary to the discharge that the former serviceman is seeking to change.’’). 15 . A dismissal based on statute of limitations is often considered a judgment on the merits. See Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 228, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328 (1995) ("The rules of finality, both statutory and judge made, treat a dismissal on statute-of-limitations grounds ... as a judgment on the merits.”). A dismissal on statute of limitations grounds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2401, however, does not constitute a judgment on the merits because that limitation is jurisdictional in nature. See Georgalis v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, 296 Fed.Appx. 14, 16 (Fed.Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); see also Young v. United States, 92 Fed.Cl.
holding that  ijinguistic consistency  required that the same arising under test be applied to the jurisdictional statute for patent claims 28 usc  1338a as is used for the general federal jurisdiction statute 28 usc  1331 holding that 28 usc  2401 is a jurisdictional statute of limitations holding that this courts sixyear statute of limitations is jurisdictional holding that the aedpa statute of limitations is not jurisdictional holding statute of limitations period defined in 28 usc  2244d is subject to equitable tolling