Case Title: OLSON v NATIONAL GUARD

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1972-11-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
50. i2307 IN ?i'HL .3II;KENK COURT O F THE STATE OF Z"lOi\JAT\TA 1972 L 1, C;(7I,\)NEL !lENi<f S . OI,SC)N , P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs - THE :yAT LL)IJAI, GUARD O F THE STATE O F 14ONTAIJA, e t a I-. , Defendants and Respondents, Appeal from: District Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Paul G, H a t f i e l d , Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Smith, Emrnons and B a i l l i e , Great F a l l s , Montana. Barry T. 01-son argued, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana. TJi 1 liam Cl-arke argued, Hel-ena , Montana, 3 i r k Larsen argued, Great F a l l s , Montana. Yon. Robert L , Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Yontana. 3. C. Ideingartner, Deputy Attorney General., argued, T4elena, Montana, Submitted : October 18, 1972 ~ e c ided : wov 1 3 1972 M r , Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court . This i s an appeal from an order of the d i s t r i c t court of the eighth judicial d i s t r i c t , Cascade County, dismissing a two count complaint for the reason that the s t a t e court lacked jurisdiction. Appellant, L t . Col. Henry S. Olson, f i l e d s u i t i n the d i s t r i c t court seeking t o have h i s discharge from the Montana A i r National Guard declared invalid. L t . Col, Olson had been an officer i n the A i r National Guard since 1954, and had prior service,giving him 20 years of service. In August 1971, he was notified he would not be retained a s an a l e r t f l i g h t officer, but would be discharged from the A i r National Guard and trans- ferred t o the A i r Reserve. To contest h i s discharge he brought s u i t i n a two count complaint. Count I charged that a l l proceedings conducted by the Vitalization Board, acting under the provisions of "~nterim Change t o ANGR 36-05, 18 Dec. 1967" were illegal. During oral argument before t h i s Court counsel for appellant stated that the question presented i s moot, so w e w i l l therefore not discuss Court I, Count I1 alleges appellant was removed from the a l e r t program of the Montana A i r National Guard because he contested the validity and action of the Vitalization Board. The d i s t r i c t court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction over both the subject matter of the cause and the person; further that the complaint failed t o s t a t e a cause of action upon which r e l i e f could be granted. In effect, appellant asks t h i s Court and the d i s t r i c t court t o serve as an appellant body t o one of the military operations of the defense of t h i s country, The d i s t r i c t court properly ruled that it did not have such jurisdiction, A s t o the allegations of Count 11, we s h a l l s e t f o r t h c e r t a i n facts. The Montana A i r National Guard has an integrated program with the United States A i r Force wherein c e r t a i n u n i t s have p i l o t s on 24 hour a l e r t duty i n defense of the continent. To be able t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the a l e r t program one must be a member of the Montana National Guard, be a c e r t i f i e d o r accredited p i l o t , and be approved by the United States A i r Force f o r such a l e r t s t a t u s . The senior o f f i c e r of the Montana u n i t i s Brig. Gen.Young, whose position i s f u l l time, salaried by the United States Government. The l o c a l commanding o f f i c e r i s Col. Whalen, a college professor, who devotes h i s weekends t o h i s command and whose salary f o r t h a t duty comes from the federal, not s t a t e government . Appellant, a s a member of the A i r National Guard, served a s the u n i t ' s a l e r t scheduling o f f i c e r f o r the l a s t three years of h i s duty. I n t h i s capacity, h i s responsibility was t o see t h a t selected p i l o t s were on f u l l time a l e r t duty. H e scheduled himself f o r such duty and over the past 13 years h i s income was a base pay of $6,000, plus a l e r t flying time which averaged some $14,000 per year. The damages, he alleges he suffered, were due t o h i s removal from the a l e r t f l i g h t pay opportunities when he was discharged i n t o the A i r Reserve. When members of the Montana A i r National Guard ( M A N G ) a r e flying a l e r t o r on a l e r t duty, they a r e paid by the United States Government (Air Force) and they a r e completely divorced from MANG and subject t o command by the United States A i r Force; they receive t h e i r orders from the A i r Force; and, before they can become a l e r t flying o f f i c e r s they must be c e r t i f i e d and activated by the A i r Force. The e n t i r e process of securing, equipping, paying and maintaining t h i s a l e r t force t o protect che continent involves federal laws, r u l e s , regulations and obligations. N o s t a t e law i s involved, consequently s t a t e courts have no jurisdiction. In addition, it is noted that the group commander, Col. Whalen, under the authority of the United States Air Force manual, the "Air Defense Command ~anual", is authorized to select the pilots and the final judgment of selecting who is to fly is left completely to his judgment. He picks his pilots based on each man's qualifications---. i . e . training, emotional and physical status. His obligations go even further in that he is charged with the responsibility of complying with the provisions of Title 10, U.S.C.A. 5 8352. That section pro- vfdes that when an officer has acquired sufficient time to obtain his military retirement a vacancy will be available for a younger officer. By so doing, the command can promote and train new leadership. Toopthis program enables many junior officers to attain 20 years of National Guard service and qualify for retirement , A long line of cases has rightly held that federal courts will refuse to review discretionary decisions of military authori- ties made within their valid jurisdiction. 0'~ara v, Zebrowski, 447 F.2d 1085; Orloff v, Willoughby, 195 F.2d 209; Byrne v. Resor, 412 F.2d 774; Smith v. Resor, 406 F . 2 d 141; Fox v . Brown, 402 F,2d 837; Winters v. United States, 281 F,Supp. 289, aff'd ' i - t , . , 390 F,2d 879, Cert. denied 291 U.S. 910. We can find no reason why the courts of this jurisdiction should interfere. The decision of the district court is affirmed, *