Document: 431 U.S. 864 97 S.Ct. 2150 53 L.Ed.2d 48 UNITED STATES et al., Petitioners,v.Nicholas J. LARIONOFF, Jr., al. No. 76-413. Argued April 27, 1977. Decided June 13, Syllabus Respondent enlisted members of the United States Navy and others similarly situated, who agreed to extend their enlistments at a time when statute provided for Variable Re-enlistment Bonus (VRB), in addition Regular (RRB), Armed Forces whose ratings were classified as "critical military skill" held entitled VRB's determined according award level effect they enlistments, notwithstanding that eliminated from list before began serving extended statutes authorizing RRB VRB repealed new Selective (SRB) substituted one respondents serve his enlistment. Pp. 869-882. (a) Implementing regulations requiring amount be awarded an member enlistment by reference he enlistment, rather than extension, are invalid being contrary Congress' purpose, manifested legislative history, enacting program inducement selected service period service. Whether re-enlists or agrees could only effective selective incentive extension if made decision count on receiving it elected remain 869-877. (b) There is nothing either language history repealing system establishing bonus show any intention part Congress affect rights those had became receive VRB's. 878-882. 175 U.S.App.D.C. 32, 533 F.2d 1167, affirmed. Keith A. Jones, Washington, D.C., petitioners. Stephen Daniel Keeffe, respondents. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion Court. 1 Seven brought this class action District Court Columbia under Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), alleging agreements various times 1968 1970, each them payment re-enlistment bonus. The ordered bonuses paid, 365 F.Supp. 140 (1973), Appeals Circuit 1167 (1976). We granted certiorari, 429 997, 522, 50 607 affirm. 2 * From early our has Services re-enlisted upon expiration term service, its expiration.1 Prior enactment Pub.L. 89-132, 79 Stat. 547 (1965), was enlistee's first multiplying monthly pay initial number years specified agreement. See former 37 §§ 308(a), (b). 3 perceived defect "it failed vary monetary reenlistment needs armed services personnel with particular skills." U.S.App.D.C., 38, F.2d, 1173. Consequently, enacted 308(g), which authorized provide, (RRB) just described, (VRB) skills short supply. multiple, no greater four, RRB.2 4 This respondent Nicholas Larionoff four 23, 1969.3 Shortly after chose participate training program, completion would qualify him rating "Communications Technician Maintenance" (CTM). At time, aware,4 CTM skill," holders eligible RRB, highest allowable rate. Before entering entailed six-year obligation, entered written agreement "in consideration pay, allowances, benefits will accrue me during continuance my service." successfully completed advanced rating, expecting 1973.5 5 On March 24, 1972, however, announced July 1, longer considered VRB. When Larionoff, through congressional representatives, inquired into continued eligibility VRB, informed since listed, not expected Accordingly, 1973, filed lawsuit, September year certified summary judgment respondents, ordering disputed 6 (1) While Government's appeal order pending Appeals, both (SRB), 1974. Enlisted Personnel Revision Act 1974, 88 119, 308 (1970 ed., Supp. V). Government concedes six named respondents; like scheduled begin prior date therefore should have received VRB's, all, while still effect.6 Johnnie S. Johnson, August did until thus confronted two questions: whether position despite Navy's elimination but extensions; (2) Johnson situation repeal same period. II 7 Both recognize "(a) soldier's entitlement dependent statutory right," Bell v. States, 366 393, 401, 81 1230, 1235, (1961), accordingly affected must governing ordinary contract principles.7 In case, relevant statute, provided: 8 "Under prescribed Secretary Defense, . designated having critical skill (an RRB) may paid additional more (the RRB)." 9 individual set forth Department Defense Instruction 1304.15, P V.B.1 (Sept. 3, 1970).8 10 contends these criteria applied completes original enters reasonable construction, requires time. n. 5, supra. argued, satisfy related V.B.1, although conceded met others. First, then "serving specialty designated" skill, V.B.1.a, so designate; second, "(a)ttain(ed) termination awards" rating. V.B.1.f. 11 also relies received. Under Directive 1304.14, IV.F 1970): 12 "When reduction awards shall established field least 90 days advance. All awards."9 (Emphasis added.) 13 Similarly, supra, VI.A, stated: 14 "Members provisions subsection IV.F. (Directive supra) except paragraph V.B.l.f. above."10 15 argues regulations, read together, establish ended, began. 16 (3) These pointed out freely concedes, contain ambiguities. 40-42, 1175-1177. need tarry, over ambiguous terms complex interrelations regulations. construing administrative "the ultimate criterion interpretation, becomes controlling weight unless plainly erroneous inconsistent regulation." Bowles Seminole Rock Co., 325 410, 414, 65 1215, 1217, 89 L.Ed. 1700 (1945). INS Stanisic, 395 62, 1519, 23 101 (1969). represents, do seriously dispute, throughout effect, interpreted entitling extends level, any, enlistment.11 Since interpretation wording we accept reading correct. B 17 (4, 5) This, does end inquiry. For valid consistent promulgated.12 persuaded insofar required it, manifest purposes hence invalid.13 18 makes crystal clear. As noted above, scheme 1965, relied entirely criticized providing all Services, regardless skills. desired flexibility calibrating incentives manpower needs. expenditures save money long run, higher enable retain highly skilled individuals considerable investment.14 Members floor debates clearly recognized wisdom offering such incentives.15 19 intended induce beyond Of course, general raise included similar making career generally attractive.16 But very specific sort incentive, because aimed group particularly desirable members, offered "at most effective, decides reenlist." Remarks Rep. Nedzi, 111 Cong.Rec. 17201 (1965). Robert McNamara, point House Committee, contrasting "proficiency pay," provides increased skills: 20 "We believe efficient way provide termers especially high demand using variable Monetary rewards thereby concentrated point, obtaining greatest return per dollar spent retention personnel. " Hearings Military Pay Bills Committee 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 2545 (June 7, 1965) (House Hearings). 21 Assistant Norman Paul, distinguished stating hoped "to cure separate problem means, overall pay." Increase Senate 41 (July 29, 1965). (Senate timing crucial intention: 22 "At (sic ) trying make up mind stay military. And think added push line staying us, what want see happening." Id., 40.17 (6) It true discussing focused reaches faced "whether But, (Armed Forces) allowances though reenlisted," 906, precisely reasoning applies re-enlist. 24 apparent examined perspective deciding due expire some future date. decision, aware level. plan envisioned Congress, case re-enlistments, operates effective," knows remains contested reassurance. now, expires.18 His "incentive" purely hypothetical possibility might there shortage other hand, nevertheless interval expires, sufficed standpoint purposes, totally gratuitous award.19 25 clear enact "concentrates incestives where returns can expected," 26 (statement Asst. Secy. Paul), effectuated certainty about offered. Instead, challenged virtual lottery.20 hold otherwise conflict invalid. Because promise reasonably certain extending Forces, entitled, held, levels enlistments. III brings us further question Johnson's skill. period, system, SRB. been abolished one, rejected argument.21 27 What said above goes far toward answering question. specifically commitment lengthen service.22 commitment, he, (provided criteria). Thus, intended, divest already earned, constitutionally so, prospective right even yet arrived. (7) intent, serious constitutional questions presented. No disputes prospectively reduce deprived able earn. Cf. (1961); Dickerson, 310 554, 60 1034, 84 1356 (1940). quite different matter, deprive performed, owing. appear light. Lynch 292 571, 54 840, 78 1434 (1934); Perry 294 330, 55 432, 912 (1935). view problems, lightly conclude, absence expression amending become 29 (8) Nothing 1974 expresses intention. whatever prohibition payments them;23 simply replaces old authorizes SRB's RRB's Nor express prohibition. paramount power important national interest justifying interference contractual entitlements invoked. 30 Courts upheld indications intent class. expressly preserves active duty passage Act. Pub.L.No.93-277, 121.24 failure include saving clause indicates abolish entirely. merely preserve assures duty. provision intend bearing 31 Second, portion Conference Report indicating "understanding" two-year extensions SRB canceling replacing four-year extension. H.R.Conf.Rep.No.93-985, pp. 4-5 (1974).25 possible unfairness eliminating work felt sufficient eligible, refer payable whom deals; rather, refers concern cast doubt man cancel reenlist reenlistment." 4. removes doubts validity commitment. relevance demonstrates responsive "concern bill require abrogate understanding" between enlistees, ibid., less likely implication. 32 Affirmed. 33 WHITE, Chief Justice, BLACKMUN, REHNQUIST join, dissenting. 34 Like Court, I agree majority's legislation irrevocably advance re-enlist agreement, executed re-enlistee's Those vested allowance benefit, total package benefits. respect, am essential Judge Haynsworth's Fourth Carini 528 738 (1975), concluded cancellation beginning forbidden law. respectfully dissent. traces policy 1795 present. 37-38, 16, 1172-1173, 16. Former 547, follows: "(g) Treasury respect Coast Guard operating Navy, computed section equal yearly installments However, meritorious cases fewer concerned determines best members. An against limitation (c) section." implementing multiples assigned depending relative urgency services' skills, measured shortages cost replacement PP IV.D.1.a, b 1970); IV.D, V.A.1, 1970). reenlisted." Except below facts relating typical concerning existence applicability "classifier" interviewed determine within enter. Several told instances expect calculated personnel, without indication reduced. 35, 36, nn. 6, 11, 1170, 1171, 11. facts, contained affidavits undisputed; affidavit introduced states Reenlistment Bonus, nor official counselling enlistee," dispute might, inadvertently otherwise, left impression promised. period." infra. Indeed, implicitly contracts state service," fixed compensation. regulation "B. Individual Eligibility Receipt Awards "1. Bonus. meets following conditions: "a. Is qualified V.A.2. continue waiver restriction necessary Service concerned. "b. Has months continuous immediately discharge, release duty, "c. grade E-3 higher. "d. Reenlists regular component three (or lesser concerned) discharge compulsory voluntary (other training), sixty-nine (69) months. "(1) payable. "(2) accomplished purpose receipt "(3) Continued normal progression defined respective classification manuals. "e. eight "f. Attains award. Member attain attained modification existing including pursuant authority approving notified specialty. "g. Meets concerned." 1304.15 canceled 1304.22 1975). 1304.14 1304.21 apparently last sentence V.B.l.f, 8, "Eligibility obligation ." prevent qualifying soon-to-be-reduced benefit agreeing announcement change, implicit recognition 41-42, 1176-1177. argues, V.B.l.f reach much smaller Tr. Oral Arg. 15-16. practice lower 45. "The officer board administer federal prescribe rules (only) adopt carry expressed statute. A this, create rule harmony mere nullity." Manhattan General Equip. Co. Commissioner, 297 129, 134, 56 397, 400, 80 (1936). See, e.g., Ernst & Hochfelder, 425 185, 213-214, 96 1375, 1391, 47 668 (1976); Dixon 381 68, 74, 85 1301, 1305, 223 argument raised briefs Brief Plaintiffs-Appellees (Cross-Appellants) Nos. 74-1211 74-1212, Respondents 15-18. regard somewhat inconclusive colloquy oral argument, 29-33, abandoning it. H.R.Rep.No.549, (1965); S.Rep.No.544, U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News p. 2745. e. g., remarks Morton, 17206 Bennett, ibid.; Dole, id., 17209; Sen. Russell, 20034. 5-6; 1-4. "decision point" constant theme hearings, committee reports, debates. 2545-2584 (statements McNamara), 2671 (colloquy Stratton Gen. Greene); 26, 40, 44 Paul); 47; 14; (1965) (remarks Nedzi). out, 43-44, 1178-1179, undertake annual review specialties existed adjusting levels, IV.F.1, member, contribute likelihood expired, supply reduced eliminated. effects would, and, given complexity ambiguity resulting misconstrued recruiters well enlistees themselves, surprising many here, 4, came acquired To extent beliefs fostered, upholding perpetrate injustice. formula based turn depended basic sure be; alter scales, promoted demoted, interval. regulation, actually ordinarily installments. If reason enlistee complete remaining overpayments recouped. IV.G. Finally, member's completing requirements 8. opposed re-enlisting, always contingent. significant difference contingency, inherent nature event involved marginal occurrence speculative events, uncertainty inject rendered primary determinant unpredictable made. decisions Collins Rumsfeld, 542 1109 (CA9 1976), cert. sub nom. Saylors 76-677; (CA4 1975), pending, 75-1695. noted, 20, precise remained uncertain, contingent meeting conditions. concession admits permits payments. Three periods 1973. installments, presumably provides: "Notwithstanding title 37, Code, amended uniformed current subsequent 308(a) (d) title, day elect bonuses. terminates $2,000 payments, combination both." referred text states: "Clarification reporting indicated obligated attention conferees exist, nuclear-power field, bill. reenlistment. great understanding operate cause problems field. conferees, therefore, understood normally conferees' full subsequently becoming operative deny Naval Operations operators, outstanding extension."

Category: 1