Document: 426 U.S. 312 96 S.Ct. 2099 48 L.Ed.2d 660 State of TENNESSEE et al., Petitioners,v.Billy Don DUNLAP. No. 75-95. Argued March 22, 1976. Decided June 10, Syllabus The National Guard Technicians Act 1968 provides that a technician, who is full-time civilian employee the Guard, must be member Guard. 32 U.S.C. § 709(b). Employment as technician may terminated upon separation from 709(e)(1); for failure to meet military security requirements, 709(e)(2); or "for cause," 709(e)(3). Held: Where respondent's employment was under 709(e)(1) when he separated expiration his enlistment, 709(e)(3)'s requirement "cause" has no application, and hence 709(e)(3) cannot provide foundation claim termination allegedly arbitrary refusal re-enlist him violated due process. Pp. 315-316. 514 F.2d 130, reversed. Alex B. Shipley, Jr., Nashville, Tenn., petitioners. William Terry Denton, Maryville, respondent. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion Court. 1 Respondent brought this action in United States District Court Eastern Tennessee, challenging with Tennessee Air violative Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment. Petitioners are defendants below Teessee its Governor, various officials 2 generally Guard,1 "shall promptly employment." §§ 709(b), (e)(1). same section "a may, at any time, cause." On December 8, 1972, respondent discharged stated reason term enlistment had expired. Five days later notified by commander would 30 because longer 3 concedes validity statutory maintain status Accordingly, focus claims petitioners' permit re-enlistment. In complaint alleged prior 8 attempted, without success, He further request hearing before board charged making recommendation on re-enlistment denied, never supplied copy charges against him, only ever received requested general one it not best interest allow re-enlist. fact, alleged, denied effect discharge necessity affording administrative recourse have if been directly cause" Liberally construed, then asserted three constitutional claims: (1) mechanism which refused procedural process; (2) "alleged discretion" vested decide whether does comport process lack "any objective ascertainable standards criteria" guide exercise discretion; (3) denial capricious, therefore process.2 4 dismissed ground subject review court. Appeals Sixth Circuit It apparently agreed decision refuse ordinarily nonreviewable civil But held should given opportunity prove based considerations, but desire terminate such way circumvent 709(e)(3)' "cause," applicable directly. "In order (§ 709(e)(3)) meaning," court concluded, "the unreviewable discretion peit re-enlistments extend decisions made purpose affecting guardsman's 133 (1975). other words, reflects more than cause shown And concluded there genuine issue property continued sufficient support contentions. We granted certiorari. 423 821, 34, 46 38 5 do agree application case. Subsection 709(e) several bases technician's employment. As already indicated, subsection requires "who ceases hold grade specified position . shall fails concurrently Guard." (3), repeat, additionally There nothing language structure 709(e), legislative history, suggest (3)'s intended qualify (1)'s mandate accompany Nor anything bearing Indeed, relevant House Senate committee reports summarize subsections providing loss membership, standards, Or H.R.Rep.No.1823, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., (1968); S.Rep.No.1446, (1968), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1968, p. 3321 (emphasis added). See also 8; S.Rep.No. 1446, 7. clear Sole import then, remains otherwise eligible (2), nevertheless cause. can significance, therefore, designed requirements (3). case, since creates confined all events, enlistment.3 judgment 6 Reversed. Secretary Army Force, case regulation exempt technicians membership contemplated exemption about 5% Of principally secretaries, clerk-typists, guards. 3318. exempted membership. included assertion discrimination violation Equal Protection Clause. Never adequately considered Appeals, us. asserts brief form legitimate expectation Perry v. Sindermann, 408 593, 599-603, 92 2694, 2698-2700, 33 570, 578-581 (1972). This pleaded complaint, accordingly,

Category: 3