Opinion ID: 800991
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The MEB Process

Text: In March 2002, because of his recurring medical problems, Dr. Mario Caycedo initiated [a] MEB for Mr. Coburn. Caycedo Decl. ¶¶ 2, 2(c), Sept. 3, 2009, J.A. 172-73. The Army thereafter determined that Coburn did not meet medical retention standards in accordance with Army regulations. Letter from Brian J. Storm, First Lieutenant, U.S. Army, to Hon. Chet Edwards, Representative in Congress (July 17, 2002) (Storm Letter), J.A. 112. Coburn was thus eligible for processing through the Physical Disability System. On July 2, 2002, he was referred to process through the MEB by the Brigade Surgeon. Id. The MEB process is used to determine whether a solider is medically qualified for retention in the Army. See Army Reg. 635-40 ¶ 4-10. Because the MEB process generally takes precedence over administrative separation procedures, Coburn could not be separated pursuant to the QMP so long as the MEB process was ongoing. See Army Reg. 635-200 ¶ 1-33. On October 30, 2002, Dr. Caycedo discussed Coburn's case with Colonel Wayne Schirner, also an Army physician. Caycedo Decl. ¶ 2(i), ( l ), (m), J.A. 174-75. Although both doctors had familiarity with Coburn's case, neither was on a MEB assigned to determine whether Coburn was medically qualified for retention. Nonetheless, after reviewing Coburn's medical record, Dr. Schirner and Dr. Caycedo agreed . . . to terminate Mr. Coburn's MEB. Id. ¶ 2(m), J.A. 175. Dr. Caycedo then wrote a letter to Coburn's Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officer, instructing that MEB action on SFC Coburn should be terminate[d], because Coburn's medical issues are stable and maybe [sic] followed by the VA [Veterans Affairs] system once the soldier leaves the military. Letter from Dr. Mario Caycedo to Mr. Hurst (Oct. 30, 2002) (Caycedo Letter), J.A. 109. Coburn was involuntarily separated from the service on the same day. On December 5, 2002, Coburn filed an application with the ABCMR, asserting that he was discharged due to the improper termination of the MEB and requesting reinstatement to allow the MEB process to continue. ABCMR Appl., Dec. 5, 2002, J.A. 104. The Board rejected Appellant's application, explaining in part: The applicant has not provided any good reason to reinstate him on active duty in order to complete physical disability processing. The scant medical information available does not indicate that the applicant was medically unfit for retention, nor is there evidence that the physical disability processing was unjustly terminated. Competent medical authority determined that his medical condition was such that he could be discharged. He has provided no medical evidence to indicate otherwise. ABCMR Mem. of Consideration (Aug. 21, 2003) (2003 Decision) at 6, J.A. 82. In his December 5, 2002 application to the ABCMR, Appellant referenced the Article 15 action; but he did not seek to challenge this action and the Board did not rule on it. On January 5, 2006, Coburn applied to the ABCMR for reconsideration. He claimed: (1) that [t]he doctor who terminated the MEB had no authority to do so, and (2) that [t]here was no medical justification to terminate the MEB. Req. for Recons., Jan. 5, 2006, J.A. 66. Coburn requested the Board to rescind the discharge orders and correct his records by granting him medical retirement based on the current rating from the Department of Veteran's Affairs of 50% disability; or, in the alternative, to correct his records to reflect 20 years of service, entitling him to a length of service discharge; or, [i]n the further alternative, to correct his records by returning the processing of his case to the MEB stage, allowing the medical processing to take its course. Id., J.A. 64. Appellant's January 5, 2006 application for reconsideration referenced his NCOER and the Article 15 action. But as with his December 5, 2002 application to the Board, Appellant did not explicitly challenge these actions. On March 7, 2007, the ABCMR rejected Appellant's application for reconsideration. See ABCMR R. of Proceedings (Mar. 7, 2007) (2007 Decision) at 4, J.A. 59. The Board found that the overall merits of the case . . . are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision. Id. at 3, J.A. 58. Coburn filed suit in District Court against the Secretary on July 7, 2009, seeking review under the APA of the ABCMR's 2003 Decision and its 2007 Decision. Coburn, 744 F.Supp.2d at 181. He sought a declaratory judgment that the Army unlawfully separated him for marijuana use, that the Army unlawfully terminated his disability evaluation, that Army regulations prohibited his separation, and that the ABCMR's decision-making process did not comply with statutory authority or Army regulations. Id. The Secretary filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment; Coburn filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. Id. at 179. The District Court granted judgment in favor of the Secretary. Id. Coburn appeals, arguing that the District Court improperly dismissed [his] claim that his separation for alleged marijuana use under the Army [QMP] was unlawful, and that the District Court and the ABCMR erred in ruling that the Army's termination of [his] physical disability evaluation processing was lawful. Appellant's Br. at 2.