Opinion ID: 1379180
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether Bowen Has a Due Process Right to a Hearing under Article I, Section 7 of the Alaska Constitution

Text: Article I, section 7 of the Alaska Constitution provides in part: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.... This court held in Nichols, 504 P.2d at 1362, that for the right to due process to attach, there must be a state action and deprivation of an individual interest of sufficient weight to warrant constitutional protection. Accordingly, the question in this case is whether Bowen was deprived of a protected liberty interest without due process of law by being denied a pre-termination administrative hearing. Bowen asserts that he was so deprived. He argues that [t]he liberty interest requiring a pretermination due process hearing applies any time the government takes action against a public employee by leveling serious charges causing a stigma or other disability to arise against the employee thus foreclosing the employee's freedom to take advantage of other employment opportunities. Bowen maintains that every time he seeks future employment or attempts to pursue his chosen profession, the practice of law, he may be obliged to explain why a previous termination of employment was for acts of misconduct. This argument has merit. Although Bowen was provided with two copies of his DD Form 214, one which contained no information concerning his discharge and one which stated that he had been honorably discharged for misconduct, Bowen could still be asked the reasons for his discharge. Furthermore, the sanitized copy of his DD Form 214 does not list any information whatsoever concerning Bowen's discharge, which would very likely prompt questions on the subject during future employment interviews. Additionally, in today's sophisticated market place, it is reasonable to conclude that prospective employers understand the language and importance of a DD Form 214. See Casey v. United States, 8 Cl. Ct. 234, 242-43 (1985) (prospective employers know and understand the coded designators used on DD-214's and routinely ask discharged servicemen for the forms, [t]hus, stigmatizing and derogatory information must only be given to servicemen who have been afforded elementary due process rights). The cited reason for Bowen's discharge, misconduct, is sufficiently stigmatizing to implicate a liberty interest triggering due process protection in these circumstances. General allegations of misconduct are sufficiently damaging to the reputation of a military employee and an attorney to implicate that employee's liberty interest. We therefore hold that Bowen is entitled to a pretermination administrative hearing under article I, section 7 of the Alaska Constitution, as to his reputation interest in addition to his interest in full severance pay. [19]