Case ID: us-ct-cl_62/html/0753-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Chief Justice Taft", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ROGERS v. UNITED STATES
    [59 C. Cls. 464; 270 U. S. 154]
    Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was affirmed, the Supreme Court deciding:
    1. The Army reorganization act of June 4, 1920, should be liberally construed to avoid unnecessary technical limitation upon the military agencies which are to carry it into effect. French v. WeeTcs, 259 U. S. 326.
    2. The requirement of the act that an officer before a court of inquiry shall be furnished with a full copy of the official records upon which his proposed classification as an officer who should not be retained in the service is based was sufficiently complied with to avoid invalidating the proceedings where the officer was furnished, for his own keeping and use, a copy of everything adverse to him in his record and was given full opportunity in the court of inquiry to consult his entire record.
    3. A court of inquiry, under this statute, reported in favor of an officer, but the final classification board, having before it the record from the court of inquiry, decided otherwise, finally classifying him as one who should not be retained in the service. Held that the fact that the court of inquiry discouraged the officer from adducing cumulative testimony in disproof of charges which that court declined to consider because they' had never been presented to him, did not invalidate the final classification, since it was not to be presumed that the final board would consider those charges under the circumstances, and since the officer’s counsel, if he deemed the evidence material and important, would have insisted on its production before the court of inquiry.
    4. On an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims upholding proceedings of military tribunals leading to claimant’s retirement from the Army, as to which it is objected that the record sent from the court of inquiry to the final classification board was defective, this court derives its knowledge of the contents of such record from the findings of the Court of Claims.
   Mr. Chief Justice Taft

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court March 1, 1926.