Opinion ID: 427733
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jurisdiction to Hear Constitutional Claims

Text: 17 Assuming that jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1346, the claims Helm raises are not reviewable. 18 This circuit recently adopted a multi-factored analysis for determining whether a civilian court should review a serviceman's allegation of deprivation of a recognized constitutional right by the military. Gonzalez v. Department of Army, 718 F.2d 926 at 929 (9th Cir.1983); Wallace v. Chappell, 661 F.2d 729, 732-34 (9th Cir.1981), rev'd on other grounds, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 2362, 76 L.Ed.2d 586 (1983). 19 The first phase of the analysis is satisfied here. (1) Helm has alleged constitutional violations, and (2) he has exhausted administrative remedies. 20 The second phase requires weighing four factors: (1) the nature and strength of the claim; (2) the potential injury to Helm if review is refused; (3) the extent of interference with military functions; and (4) the extent to which military discretion or expertise is involved. Gonzalez, at 930. 21 On balance, these factors favor finding Helm's claims nonreviewable. Age discrimination is examined for a rational basis, which the military could easily establish. See Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 96 S.Ct. 2562, 49 L.Ed.2d 520 (1976). The potential injury to Helm is only economic (the difference between a major's and a lieutenant colonel's retirement benefits). Scrutiniz[ing] numerous personnel decisions by many individuals as they relate to appellant's claim that he was improperly denied promotion would significantly interfere with military functions. Gonzalez, at 930. Finally, an inquiry into promotion decisions would involve the court in a very sensitive area of military expertise and discretion. Id. 22 In short, the special policy considerations involved in judicial review of military decisionmaking preclude review in this case. See Wallace, 661 F.2d at 732.