United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

CHRIS BELL, BRIAN BONIFANT, ARLYN BRUNET, PHILLIP CETRONE, ANDRE CLARK, MICHAEL COLE, MELITON CORDERO, TERRY DAVIS, WENDY DAVIS, CARMEN DESHEPLO, CHRISTOPHER M. DIAZ, KERMIT DIAZ, DAVID FLORES, ERIC FRIEDMAN, JESUS GAMEZ, GEORGE GRECO, BRENDAN HANDRATTY, GABRIEL HILL, GEORGE HORTON, PHILIP JONES, DAVE JOSEPH, DARREN KAWCZYK, ROBERT KENNEDY, MATTHEW KRUSE, GREGORY KRYWY, MICHAEL MIRANDA, SAMARL PARKS, FRANCISCO PEREZ, DAVID PINA, LAILA RICO, MICHAEL SERRA, JOSEPH SHEPHERD, MICHAEL SILVEIRA, JASON STAAB-PETERS, CHANELLE WALLACE, JOHN WALTERS, CHRIS YORK, Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________

2021-1678 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:16-cv-00830-LKG, Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby. ______________________ Case: 21-1678 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 12/10/2021

2 BELL v. US

Decided: December 10, 2021 ______________________

LAWRENCE BERGER, Mahon & Berger, Esqs., Glen Cove, NY, argued for plaintiffs-appellants.

MILES KARSON, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing- ton, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by REGINALD THOMAS BLADES, JR., BRIAN M. BOYNTON, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR. ______________________

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, SCHALL and STOLL, Circuit Judges. MOORE, Chief Judge. Appellants appeal a United States Court of Federal Claims order dismissing their relocation-incentive-bonus claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Bell v. United States, 145 Fed. Cl. 378, 387 (2019). 1 For the following rea- sons, we affirm. I Appellants are former and current Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) employees who were relocated to Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands at the DEA’s request for two to five years. Each Appellant received a one-time relocation incentive bonus pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 5753(b), which pro- vides that “[t]he Office of Personnel Management may au- thorize the head of an agency to pay a [relocation incentive] bonus” to an individual who relocates to accept a position.

1 Appellants do not appeal the Claims Court’s reso- lution of their other claims. Case: 21-1678 Document: 38 Page: 3 Filed: 12/10/2021

BELL v. US 3

Each bonus was equivalent to 25% of each Appellant’s yearly salary. Appellants brought suit against the government, alleg- ing they are entitled to a relocation incentive bonus for each year of their relocation, rather than the one-time bo- nus they received. The Claims Court dismissed that claim, holding it was not based on a statute or regulations that are money mandating. Bell, 145 Fed. Cl. at 387. Appel- lants appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). II To establish Claims Court jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identify a money-mandating statute or agency regulation, see 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), or a combination of statute, regulation, and agency policy, Roberts v. United States, 745 F.3d 1158, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2014). When a provision uses discretionary language, “a very strong, but rebuttable, presumption arises that the . . . provision is non-money-mandating.” Contreras v. United States, 64 Fed. Cl. 583, 593 (2005); see also McBryde v. United States, 299 F.3d 1357, 1362 (Fe