United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 00-3794EA

_____________

Winston G. Chandler, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * On Appeal from the United 

* States District Court

United States Air Force, Secretary; * for the Eastern District

Raymond H. Weller, Chief of * of Arkansas.

Correction Board, United States Air *

Force; Martha Maust, Panel Chair, *

United States Air Force, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: April 27, 2001

 Filed: June 26, 2001

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and FAGG,

Circuit Judges.

___________

RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

Major Winston G. Chandler brought this action alleging that during his military

career an Air Force mistake prevented him from receiving promotions due him, and that

the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (Board) failed to correct the

mistake pursuant to the Reserve Officer Personnel Act of 1954. The District Court

dismissed Major Chandler&s claim as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a). On
-2-

reconsideration, the Court added that, pursuant to the Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1346, the Court of Federal Claims, rather than the District Court, has jurisdiction over

Major Chandler&s claim. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.

Major Chandler served as a commissioned officer from 1944 through his

retirement in 1966. In 1983, discovering retrospectively the Air Force&s failure to grant

him the sequence of promotions to which he believed he was entitled, Major Chandler

submitted to the Board a formal application for correction pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552

(allowing the Board, at the discretion of the Secretary of the Air Force, to correct errors

and remove injustices from military records and, when it finds error, to award

retroactive promotions and back pay). Following administrative consideration, the

Board denied his claim, concluding he had not shown either that he was eligible for an

earlier promotion or that he had been placed in the wrong “promotion zone.” Major

Chandler again brought the matter before the Board in 1995 and was again denied

relief; he sought reconsideration, and the Board, after review on the merits, delivered

a third adverse decision in March 1999. Major Chandler filed this action in July 2000.

In providing for the establishment of military boards of review, Congress

exercised its authority over the military granted in Art. I, § 8 of the Constitution and

long recognized by courts. See Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296, 300-04 (1983)

(“special and exclusive system of military justice” provides appropriate redress for

military complaints). This Court has previously determined that matters affecting

military discipline are nonjusticiable, see Watson v. Ark. Nat&l Guard, 886 F.2d 1004,

1008-09 (8th Cir. 1989). We agree with the District Court that it cannot grant Major

Chandler a promotion to Lieutenant Colonel, the rank which he claims. This does not

mean, however, that the District Court was without jurisdiction in the matter. Under

the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-06, the District Court has authority

to review the decisions of military review boards to determine whether they are

arbitrary, capricious, not supported by substantial evidence, or contrary to law. See

Chappell, 426 U.S. at 303; Watson, 886 F.2d at 1008 n.10; see also Kreis v. Secretary
-3-

of the Air Force, 866 F.2d 1508, 1513-15 (D.C. Cir. 1989). Because Major Chandler

has waived any request for monetary damages in excess of $10,000, we perceive no

impediment to the District Court&s jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491 and § 1346(a)(2)

(Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over non-tort civil actions against the United

States; district courts have jurisdiction over such claims not exceeding $10,000). 

Moreover, Major Chandler&s action was timely for purposes of such review,

since it was brought within six years of the Board&s 1999 decision. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2401(a) (6-year limitations period); Kinsey v. United States, 852 F.2d 556, 557 (Fed.

Cir. 1988) (claim against United States first accrues “on the date when all the events

have occurred which fix the liability of the Government and entitle the claimant to

institute an action”). The regulations which govern the Board's procedures provide for

motions for reconsideration, and fix no time limit within which such motions may be

filed. When the Board, for the third time, rejected the plaintiff's request, it did so only

after reexamining the merits of his claim under the Reserve Officer Personnel Act.

Although the District Court may review the Board&s decision, we see no basis

for a cause of action against the two named individuals. See Chappell, 426 U.S. at

300-04. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal as to the individual defendants, we

reverse as to the Air Force, and we remand to the District Court for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion. On remand, the District Court should proceed to decide

Major Chandler's claim under the Reserve Officer Personnel Act, using the standards

set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.