Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-05090/USCOURTS-ca13-14-05090-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David R. Smith
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DAVID R. SMITH,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2014-5090

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:13-cv-00094-PEC, Chief Judge Patricia E. 

Campbell-Smith.

______________________ 

Decided: May 26, 2015

______________________ 

PHILLIP LEON DAVIDSON, Law Office of Phillip L. Davidson, Nashville, TN, for plaintiff-appellant. 

DOUGLAS GLENN EDELSCHICK, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also 

represented by STUART F. DELERY, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN,

JR., MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR.; BRYCE G. POOLE, Air Force 

Civil Litigation, United States Air Force, Joint Base 

Andrews, MD. 

Case: 14-5090 Document: 35-2 Page: 1 Filed: 05/26/2015
2 SMITH v. US

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, MOORE, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Lieutenant Colonel David R. Smith appeals a decision 

of the United States Court of Federal Claims, Smith v. 

United States, 114 Fed. Cl. 691 (2014), sustaining the 

government’s position that Lt. Col. Smith is not entitled 

to restoration to a position with the Active Guard Reserve 

(“AGR”). To prevail on appeal, Lt. Col. Smith must establish that the court’s decision was “arbitrary, capricious, 

unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to law.” 

Metz v. United States, 466 F.3d 991, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2006); 

Smith, 114 Fed. Cl. at 700.

BACKGROUND

From 1993 to February 2002, Smith served with the 

Tennessee Air National Guard as a “traditional” guardsman in the118th Air Wing. In February 2002 he was 

selected for a position in the AGR. AGR personnel serve 

full-time. Guardsmen in this status serve a probationary 

period of six years, and then obtain “retention (career) 

status and shall require subsequent management under a 

career program.” Air National Guard Instruction 

(“ANGI”) 36-101 §2.2.1.1. A career management program

is “a program that may afford individuals the opportunity 

to achieve upward mobility consistent with manpower 

constraints and the needs of the Air National Guard.” 

ANGI 36-101 §1.1.

The Air National Guard Instructions provide that “career retention and advancement” is “dependent on existing force requirements and the needs of the unit, State, 

and Air National Guard.” ANGI 36-101 §2.2.1.2. Further, “AGR personnel are counted against authorized 

ANG [Air National Guard] end-strength for Airmen on 

Case: 14-5090 Document: 35-2 Page: 2 Filed: 05/26/2015
SMITH v. US 3

full-time National Guard duty as authorized by Congress. 

ANGI 36-101 §2.2.2 (citing 10 U.S.C. §115).

“Additionally, AGR personnel are counted against 

congressional authorizations for the controlled grades of 

E-8 [senior master sergeant], E-9 [chief master sergeant], 

O-4 [major], O-5 [lieutenant colonel], and O-6 [colonel].” 

Id. (citing 10 U.S.C. §§1201, 12012). These “Congressionally mandated end-strength authorizations” are known as 

“controlled grade ceilings.” ANGI 36-101 (glossary of 

terms). “Assignment or promotion to these controlled 

grades cannot exceed the annually established military 

duty end-strength or grade ceilings.” ANGI 36-101 §13.3. 

The National Guard Bureau “is responsible for allocating 

controlled grades” among the states, which “must adhere 

to their controlled grade limits.” Id. §§13.3.1, 13.3.2.

Then-Major Smith’s February 2002 selection for an 

AGR position was for a four-year tour in the Tennessee 

Air National Guard on full-time active duty as a Deputy 

Commander of the 45th Civil Support Team, Weapons of 

Mass Destruction unit. In 2006, a unit Commander AGR 

position became available in the 45th Civil Support Team, 

which was limited to a three or four-year term. Relying 

on the declaration of Terry M. Haston, the Adjutant 

General for the Tennessee National Guard, the Court of 

Federal Claims found that “[a]s a matter of policy, the 

position of unit Commander is limited in term to either a 

three or four-year term,” which “allows command to move 

multiple officers through this position of leadership.” 

Smith, 114 Fed. Cl. at 697. Adjutant General Haston 

stated in his declaration that Smith “was counseled that 

the commander’s position . . . is term-limited as a matter 

of policy . . . and the Tennessee Air National Guard did 

not have the additional AGR structure to place him back 

in the Air Guard at the expiration of his term of command.”

Case: 14-5090 Document: 35-2 Page: 3 Filed: 05/26/2015
4 SMITH v. US

After successfully pursuing the position, in about October 2006 Smith began service as Commander of the 

45th Civil Support Team, Weapons of Mass Destruction 

unit in a three to four-year tour. In December 2006 Smith

was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, and in 

February 2008, after serving six years in the AGR, Smith 

attained career status under ANGI 36-101. 

In August 2009 the Tennessee Air National Guard notified Smith that his command position would soon be 

rotated to a new commander, and he began to look for 

other opportunities to continue his AGR service. Smith 

decided to pursue attendance at the Naval War College 

for one year on active duty, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 

§12301(d). Smith’s orders permitted him to maintain his 

AGR status in the 45th Civil Support Team until July 5, 

2010, at which time Smith’s AGR status ended. On July 

6, 2010, Smith entered the one-year program at the Naval 

War College, from which he graduated in June 2011.

Smith sought to resume an AGR position, but he was 

notified by the Tennessee Air National Guard that his 

former position was term-limited and had ended, and that 

he did not have restoration rights. He was not selected 

for any other AGR positions. Meanwhile, Smith obtained 

a full-time temporary position as an Intelligence Operations Specialist, serving from July 5, 2011 to January 14, 

2012. This was not an AGR position and, when this 

position ended, Smith returned to his initial status as a 

part-time traditional guardsman. The government, citing 

Adjutant General Haston’s declaration in the Court of 

Federal Claims, states that the “Tennessee ANG has 

stated that it will consider LTC Smith in the future for a 

full-time AGR position in his grade and specialty if one 

becomes available.” U.S. Br. 11.

Smith cites four sections of the ANGI 36-101 to support his contention that he is entitled to restoration in the 

AGR.

Case: 14-5090 Document: 35-2 Page: 4 Filed: 05/26/2015
SMITH v. US 5

ANGI 36-101 §2.8.3

ANGI 36-101 §2.8.3 is the core provision specifying 

restoration rights of AGR personnel:

§2.8.3 AGR personnel who enter ANG Title 10 

Statutory Tour, assigned to the NGB [National 

Guard Bureau] UMB [Unit Manning Document] 

(e.g. Title 10 U.S.C., Sections 10211, 10305, 12402 

and 12310) have restoration rights not to exceed 

five years, to the State from which they entered 

their initial Statutory Tour. Individuals will not 

be restored to AGR status solely to gain entitlement to a new period of restoration rights. Exceptions to this policy will not be considered. Each 

AGR Airman who enters an ANG [Air National 

Guard] Title 10 Statutory Tour must be informed 

in writing and acknowledge such notice that the 

individual is entitled to revert to the same military grade held prior to the Statutory Tour assignment. . . .

The Court of Federal Claims held that the restoration 

rights provided in §2.8.3 do not apply to Smith. ANGI 36-

101 glossary of terms defines “Statutory Tour” as a “Title 

10 Section 12310 active duty tour attached to NGB [National Guard Bureau] IAW [in accordance with] ANGI 36-

6, ANG Statutory Tour Program Policies and Procedures.” 

The court correctly observed that, by its terms, §2.8.3

restoration rights apply to AGR personnel who enter a 

Statutory Tour as defined in the glossary of terms.

The court observed that the order authorizing Smith’s 

attendance at the Naval War College described the “Type 

of Duty/Authority” as “School Professional Military Education (PME)” pursuant to 10 USC §12301(d) and ANGI 

36-2001. Smith, 114 Fed. Cl. at 701. These references 

support the government’s assertion that Smith’s attendance at the Naval War College was not a Statutory Tour 

as set forth in ANGI 36-101 §2.8.3. 

Case: 14-5090 Document: 35-2 Page: 5 Filed: 05/26/2015
6 SMITH v. US

Further, the Statutory Tour Program Policies and 

Procedures 4, ANGI 36-6, requires service members 

selected for a Statutory Tour to initial six paragraphs on 

the Form 830, Statutory Tour Statement of Understanding. Smith does not allege he was provided with or initialed this form, and the Court of Federal Claims found no 

such form in the record. The court also observed that the 

order assigning Smith to attend the Naval War College 

does not suggest that Smith’s attendance would be a 

Statutory Tour. “Rather, it refers to the instructions 

governing professional military education, ANGI 36-

2301.” Smith, 114 Fed. Cl. at 702.

ANGI 36-101 §7.8.1

Lt. Col. Smith also challenges the determination that 

ANGI 36-101 §7.8.1 does not apply to him. Section 7.8.1 

states that “AGRs called or ordered to Title 10 federal 

active duty . . . supporting Active Duty requirements for 

operations/missions/exercises/training (Title 10 U.S.C. 

12301(d), 12302, 12304, or 10147) will not be terminated 

from their Title 32 U.S.C. Section 502(f) orders.” Smith’s 

argument appears to be that he was terminated from 

AGR orders, in violation of §7.8.1, by not being restored 

after his tour at the Naval War College.

Smith served as an AGR pursuant to 32 U.S.C. 

§502(f). The Court of Federal Claims found that Smith 

was separated from AGR service on July 5, 2010—before 

beginning his tour of duty at the Naval War College on 

July 6, 2010. Smith, 114 Fed. Cl. at 703. The record 

contains Smith’s Tennessee Air National Guard orders 

which state that his AGR position was pursuant to §502(f) 

and ended on July 5, 2010, and his orders stating that his 

attendance at the Naval War College is “Professional 

Military Education” pursuant to 10 U.S.C. §12301(d) and 

ANGI 36-2001.

In addition, Smith’s “Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty” states that “Member served on 

Case: 14-5090 Document: 35-2 Page: 6 Filed: 05/26/2015
SMITH v. US 7

active duty in support of an AGR tour program according 

to 32 USC 502(f) & ANGI 36-101 from (1-FEB-2002 – 5-

JULY-2010).” No error has been shown in the court’s 

finding that Smith was not an AGR when he began his 

tour at the Naval War College. That finding is fully 

supported by the record. Moreover, Smith does not contest the finding that his AGR tour prior to attending 

Naval War College was term-limited.

ANGI 36-101 §2.2.1.1

Lt. Col. Smith also challenges the determination that 

his “career status” under ANGI 36-101 §2.2.1.1 did not 

provide assurance of continued AGR employment.

Section 2.2.1.1 states that “Continuation beyond the 

initial probationary period in service in AGR status for 

more than six years constitutes retention (career status) 

and shall require subsequent management under a career 

program.” Section 2.2.1.2 further states that “career 

retention and advancement will be dependent on existing 

force requirements and the needs of the unit, State, and 

Air National Guard.” Section 9.9.1 provides:

Airmen granted career status (successive tour) 

shall be administered with the understanding 

that their service may lead to a military retirement after attaining the required years of [total 

active federal military service]. However, career 

status does not guarantee continuation to 20 

years of [total active federal military service] and 

an [active duty] retirement. Continuation to 20 

years of [total active federal military service] and 

beyond is contingent on individual performance, 

career progression, mission requirements, force 

management and the needs of the unit, State, and 

Air National Guard.

Section 1.1 of ANGI 36-101 also explains that continued employment in AGR status is not guaranteed, stating 

Case: 14-5090 Document: 35-2 Page: 7 Filed: 05/26/2015
8 SMITH v. US

“a career management program is defined as a program 

that may afford individuals the opportunity to achieve 

upward mobility consistent with manpower constraints 

and the needs of the Air National Guard.” The conclusion 

that guaranteed employment is not provided under the 

rules is further supported by statutory limitations on

manpower and controlled grade ceilings as set by Congress, which cannot be exceeded. See ANGI 36-101 

§§2.2.1.2, 2.2.2, 13.3.

ANGI 36-101 §7.5

Lt. Col. Smith also appeals the denial of his motion to 

alter or amend the judgment pursuant to RCFC 59(e). 

Smith argued that, pursuant to ANGI 36-101 §7.5, his 

AGR status should have been preserved while attending 

the Naval War College. Section 7.5 states:

Training and Developmental Education 

(DE). AGRs will be afforded the same opportunity for enhancing their military knowledge and career as is presently available to all other ANG 

Airmen. AGRs attend all service schools in AGR 

status. Orders will indicate the fund citation for 

travel and per diem provided under the school 

quota authorization.

The Court of Federal Claims observed that Smith’s 

AGR status was “extended until the start date of his 

Naval War College duty in July 2010, during which time 

Lt. Col. Smith assisted with the transition to the new unit 

commander.” We discern no error in the determination 

that when Smith began his tour at the Naval War College 

he was not in AGR status. Thus, the §7.5 provision that 

“AGRs attend all service schools in AGR status” does not 

apply.

Case: 14-5090 Document: 35-2 Page: 8 Filed: 05/26/2015
SMITH v. US 9

CONCLUSION

On review of the statute and regulations, and the position of the government, we conclude that the ruling of 

the Court of Federal Claims is in accordance with law. 

AFFIRMED

Each party shall bear its costs.

Case: 14-5090 Document: 35-2 Page: 9 Filed: 05/26/2015