crime that the command was fully aware was a false accusation. ... I made several requests to various members of the command after initial possible misunderstands [sic] by email for a direct meeting, only to be ignored.” (capitalization in original). Regarding the counseling statement, plaintiff indicated “while I am in citizen status, as I am now, you can mind your own business on how I choose to address anyone. If you don’t like it, you can write your congressman and request the law be changed.” Plaintiff continued and instructed a superior officer, Lieutenant Colonel Nadol-ski: “You have no authority to request any American citizen be subject to military custom, courtesy and law.” Therefore, plaintiff informed Lieutenant Colonel Nadolski, “I will not be signing an (Fed.Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Spellissy v. United States, 103 Fed.Cl. 274,
holding that the appellant waived this argument holding that argument raised at oral argument that was not included in brief is waived holding that the appellees argument was waived because they had expressly abandoned the argument before the administrative agency holding that the appellant waived an argument listed only in his summary of the argument holding that the court of federal claims correctly concluded that plaintiff waived his argument concerning his fathers constructive travel restriction by not first raising the argument with the administrative agency