Cass v. United States

Background

A group of reservists who had served more than four years and six months but less than five years were involuntarily released from active duty and sought lump-sum readjustment pay. The reservists relied on a statutory rule that counts a part of a year of six months or more as a whole year. Lower courts split on whether that rounding rule should make someone with four years, six months eligible. The Court of Appeals ruled against the reservists, and the Supreme Court reviewed the case to resolve the conflict.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the six-month rounding rule applies to deciding who qualifies for readjustment pay or only to how much money a qualifying person receives. The Court found the statute ambiguous on that point and examined the congressional history. It relied on the original 1956 law, a Comptroller General letter, and the 1962 codification history to conclude Congress intended a five-year minimum for eligibility. The Court therefore held the rounding rule applies only to computing the payment amount, not to lowering the five-year threshold.

Real world impact

As a result, reservists involuntarily released with less than five full years of continuous active service are not eligible for readjustment pay even if they have served four years and six months. The decision affirms the government’s position and resolves conflicting lower-court rulings, affecting current and future claims under the law.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas disagreed and would have reversed, siding with an earlier Court of Claims decision that the rounding rule should make four years, six months sufficient for eligibility.