to adjudicate Mr. DeBatto’s claims. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 4. The government initially contested this court’s jurisdiction over those claims, Def.’s Mot. at 7, referring to plaintiffs failure to cite the fact that his claims for disability retirement benefits fall within the ambit of 10 U.S.C. § 1201. Section 1201 provides that if the Secretary concludes that a service member is “unfit to perform the duties of the member’s office, grade, rank, or rating because of physical disability incurred while entitled to basic pay ... the Secretary may retire the member.” 10 U.S.C. § 1201(a). The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that Section 1201 is money-mandating. See Chambers, 417 F.3d at 1223-24 (citing Fisher, 402 F.3d at 1174-75); Sawyer v. United States, 930 F.2d 1577, 1580 (Fed.Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Based upon Section 1201, Mr. DeBatto can
recognizing that although provision of municipal service is not fundamental right inequitable provision of that service is subject to equal protection analysis holding that an attempted service on the partys counsel was insufficient without proof of the counsels actual authority to receive service holding that fdcpa statutory damages did not predominate over the requested equitable relief because given the defendants net worth and the number of class members each class member would be entitled to receive only 025 in statutory damages holding because legislature knew how to include terms within statutory definition and did not do so statutory definition did not include terms in light of the terms contemporaneous inclusion of the same terms in a separate provision holding that section 1201 is moneymandating and that when the terms of the statutory provision are met the service member is entitled to receive compensation