Opinion ID: 353769
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: THE CANCELLATION OF VanderMOLEN'S SCHEDULED PROMOTION TO CAPTAIN

Text: 38 VanderMolen also alleges that the cancellation of his scheduled promotion to captain was illegal and should be rescinded. 39 The promotion of a military officer is a discretionary act. Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 90, 73 S.Ct. 534, 97 L.Ed. 842 (1953). This court will not overturn a discretionary determination of the Air Force Board of Correction for Military Records unless it can be shown that the Board's decision was arbitrary, capricious or unlawful. Dorl v. United States, 200 Ct.Cl. 626, 633, cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1032, 94 S.Ct. 461, 38 L.Ed.2d 323 (1973). Ratings and promotions are discretionary matters with which the court will continue to be 'scrupulous not to intervene' unless clear error is shown or relief is mandated by law or regulation. Boyd v. United States, 207 Ct.Cl. 1, 13 (1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 911, 96 S.Ct. 1106, 47 L.Ed.2d 314 (1976). This is especially true since (t)he promotion of an officer in the military service is a highly specialized function involving military requirements of the service and the qualifications of the officer in comparison with his contemporaries, plus expertise and judgment possessed only by the military. Brenner v. United States, 202 Ct.Cl. 678, 693-94 (1973), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 831, 95 S.Ct. 54, 42 L.Ed.2d 56 (1974). 40 It must be emphasized, however, that this case does not concern an ordinary denial of a promotion. VanderMolen was actually scheduled to be promoted to captain, and his promotion was cancelled for two stated reasons. These reasons were officer disqualification UP AFM 35-99 . . . . Officer expresses objection to use of Nuclear Weapons because of religious and moral beliefs. 38 41 VanderMolen challenges the first of these reasons, arguing that his disqualification under AFM 35-99 should not have been used as a basis for the denial of his promotion to captain. We agree with him. Paragraph 6 of AFM 35-99 states clearly that: 42 the assignment disqualification of any member under this manual is not of itself cause for punitive measures or an adverse reflection upon the individual. Disqualification will not be used to justify or to avoid appropriate proceedings under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or under existing regulations on administrative processing or separation of individual members. 43 To use a disqualification under AFM 35-99 as a justification for the denial of a promotion is manifestly to use it as a cause for punitive measures in violation of the terms of the manual. 44 Appellant cites Grimm v. Brown, 449 F.2d 654, 655 (9th Cir. 1971), for the proposition that if the military proceeds against an individual for several reasons that are inextricably interwoven, and if one of those reasons is unlawful, the procedure as a whole is unlawful. See Clay v. United States, 403 U.S. 698, 91 S.Ct. 2068, 29 L.Ed.2d 810 (1971). Grimm, however, is inapplicable to the facts of VanderMolen's case. Grimm concerned charges against an Air Force officer before a Board of Inquiry. In such a procedure the Air Force must follow specific standards and regulations. The promotion of an officer, by contrast, is entirely discretionary. No law or regulation mandated appellant's promotion. Cooper v. United States, 203 Ct.Cl. 300, 304 (1973). This court cannot postulate that a discretion to promote would be exercised favorably if there remains a valid ground for the Air Force to have withdrawn VanderMolen's promotion. Clinton v. United States, 191 Ct.Cl. 604, 605, 423 F.2d 1367, 1368 (1970). See Yee v. United States, 512 F.2d 1383, 1388 (Ct.Cl.1975). We must therefore inquire into the second reason for the cancellation of VanderMolen's promotion, his objection to the use of nuclear weapons. 45 Unfortunately, the record is simply not adequate at this time to sustain a determination of the legal validity of this reason. If it is based upon the findings of the Faculty Board, as appears most likely, 39 then it is illegitimate, and there are no reasons at all justifying the cancellation of VanderMolen's promotion. In such circumstances the cancellation must be overturned as arbitrary and capricious. See Bridgman v. United States, 185 Ct.Cl. 133, 137, 399 F.2d 186, 190 (1968). If, on the other hand, the cancellation was based on untainted evidence, such as VanderMolen's counseling records, we do not think a court should interfere with legitimate military discretion in this area. 46 Our disposition of the case does not require us to consider appellant's argument that the Air Force also violated the procedural requirements of AFR 36-3. 40 47 Reversed and remanded to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.