to adjudicate the constitutional and statutory claims in Dr. Klingensehmitt’s complaint that seek to challenge Navy policies such as SECNAVINST 1730.7C or other policies that are not directly related to Klingenschmitt’s wrongful discharge claim. Because it is not necessary to address Dr, Klingensehmitt’s constitutional and statutory objections to such policies in order to adjudicate his claim for money damages for wrongful discharge, the Tucker Act does not supply a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction over those claims. See Volk v. United States, 111 Fed.Cl. 313, 326 (2013) (observing that there is no Tucker Act jurisdiction over standalone constitutional claims in Military Pay Act case). Cf. Filipiczyk v. United States, 88 Fed.Cl. 776, 784 (2009) (citing Holley, 124 F.3d at 1466) (<HOLDING>). In addition to his arguments under the First
holding that the claims court has no jurisdiction under the tucker act over claims to social security benefits holding in a breach of contract action brought by a government contract surety under the tucker act that the tucker act contains an unequivocal expression waiving sovereign immunity as to claims not particular claimants holding that the tucker act does not provide independent jurisdiction over claims for injunctive relief in contractual dispute cases holding that a breach of settlement claim should have been brought in the court of federal claims pursuant to the tucker act holding that there is no tucker act jurisdiction where claims under nonmoney mandating sources of law constitute independent causes of action and not factors in  claims brought under the arguably moneymandating per diem statute and regulation