
    Norma Jene MOSLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES Department of the Army, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-16275
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted August 16, 2016 
    
    Filed August 25, 2016
    Norma Jene Mosley, Desert Hills, AZ, Pro Se.
    Laurence G. Tinsley, Jr., Senior General Counsel, Phoenix, AZ.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAYY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Norma Jene Mosley appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action challenging her discharge from the Department of the Army. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal of an action as barred by the statute of limitations. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Mosley’s action as time-barred because Mosley filed her action eleven years after the statute of limitations had expired, and failed to show that she is entitled to tolling on the basis of her application for relief before the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, which was filed eight years after the statute of limitations had expired. See Turtle Island Restoration Network v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 438 F.3d 937, 942-43 (9th Cir. 2006) (six-year statute of limitations applies to challenges under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702); Nichols v. Hughes, 721 F.2d 657, 659 (9th Cir. 1983) (“[A] cause of action for wrongful discharge occurs at the time of discharge.”); Vaughn v. Teledyne, Inc., 628 F.2d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir. 1980) (burden of proving facts that show tolling falls on the plaintiff).

Contrary to Mosley’s contentions, the complaint does not reflect that Mosley brought a claim seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records.

We reject as without merit Mosley’s contention that 10 U.S.C. § 1558 applies to her action.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     