Court Opinion

ID: 9461579
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:18:17.944216+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:08.666378
License: Public Domain

ROBB, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I dissent. My fundamental difficulty with the majority opinion is that it confuses the proceedings relating to Colonel Rolles as an officer in the Air Force with the proceedings relating to him as a civilian employee. As a result of this confusion the majority reaches the conclusion that the Civil Service Commission has the right and duty to re-examine disciplinary findings and actions or assignments and transfers in the military. I find that conclusion startling and I reject it.
THE MILITARY PROCEEDINGS
The proceedings relating to Colonel Rolles as an Air Force officer, which may be called the military proceedings, had their origin in July and August 1970 when Rolles, flying by military aircraft, diverted the aircraft from its scheduled course to land him near his Maryland home; and he thereafter submitted a travel voucher requesting mileage and transportation by privately owned vehicle for the trip made by military aircraft. The Air Force alleged that the travel voucher was fraudulent. According to Rolles he repaid the amount of the voucher, $59.90. The matter was investigated by the FBI and on October 16, 1970 Rolles made a statement to the FBI about it.
On January 6, 1971 General Hoff issued an Administrative Reprimand to Rolles, reprimanding him for filing a fraudulent travel voucher and diverting an Air Force aircraft. The Reprimand stated:
You are hereby reprimanded for the above derelictions. By causing a false claim to be presented for payment you demonstrated that you could not or would not adhere to the professional standards and integrity expected of an officer in the Air Force Reserve. Such action on your part amounted to a breach of trust and raises serious question as to the propriety of you retaining a Reserve commission. The diversion of the government aircraft demonstrated a callous and flagrant disregard of Air Force directives. Both of these derelictions reflected most adversely upon you not only as an officer but also as an individual.
On January 7, 1971 the Commander of the United States Air Force Reserve ordered that Rolles be transferred to an inactive reserve position; and on January 11, 1971 Rolles was so reassigned. On January 12, 1971 Rolles wrote the Commander of the Central Air Force Reserve Region asking whether the Reprimand was addressed to him as a civilian employee or as a military officer and what rebuttal opportunities were available. On January 15, 1971 General Hoff replied that the Reprimand had been addressed to Rolles as a military officer and that since “an administrative reprimand is not punitive” there were no grounds for rebuttal. However, General *1329Hoff’s letter concluded, “Should you want to take further action, you may refer to AFR 31 — 3.”
AFR 31-3, cited by General Hoff, established procedures for making application to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, and for the consideration of such applications by the Board. This Board was established by 10 U.S.C. § 1552. The Air Force publication known as AF Regulation 31-3, 21 October, 1970, quotes 10 U.S.C. § 1552 and then reprints 32 C.F.R., Part 865, Subpart A — Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records. With minor variations the provisions of this Subpart A appeared in 29 Fed.Reg. 13710, October 6, 1964.
The Correction Board was empowered to correct any military record when necessary “to correct an error or remove an injustice”. If the charges made by General Hoff in the Reprimand were unfounded the Board could have recommended to the Secretary of the Air Force that they be deleted or that the Reprimand be withdrawn. If the reassignment of Colonel Rolles was based on such unfounded charges or was otherwise unjust the Board could have recommended his return to the Active Reserve. Hodges v. Callaway, 499 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1974). Such recommendations would ordinarily be conclusive. Furthermore, if Rolles made a prima facie showing before the Board he would have been entitled to a hearing, at which he could be represented by counsel and could call witnesses in his behalf. See 32 C.F.R. § 865.8. Finally, Rolles was entitled to seek judicial review of any unfavorable final decision of the Board or the Secretary of the Air Force. Van Bourg v. Nitze, 128 U.S.App.D.C. 301, 388 F.2d 557 (1967). Nevertheless Rolles never availed himself of this source of relief. According to counsel in this court “there was no reason ... to petition the Board”.
Both the Administrative Reprimand and the reassignment to the Standby Reserve were valid under Air Force practices and regulations. The Administrative Reprimand issued to Rolles by Brigadier General Hoff, commander of the reserve region in which Rolles was stationed, was not a formal disciplinary action under Air Force regulations and imposed no punitive sanctions such as loss of pay or temporary confinement. The Reprimand was only General Hoff’s personal expression of dissatisfaction with Rolles’ military conduct. As such, it might well have been oral rather than written and thus was no different from admonishments Rolles had received in the past.
Rolles’ reassignment ,to the Standby Reserve was pursuant to AFM 35-3. As required by 10 U.S.C. § 271, chapter 12 of AFM 35-3
establishes procedures for continuously screening the Ready Reserve to insure that only those members who meet certain standards, possess required military qualifications, and, are immediately available for military service in the event of war, a National emergency, or when otherwise authorized by law, will be retained in the Ready Reserve.
AFM 35-3 § 12-1. Under the requirements of the regulation, transfer of a member of the Active Reserve to the Standby Reserve is authorized only for reasons specifically included in Table 12 — 1 of the regulation and stated on reassignment orders. AFM 35-3 §§ 12-2c, 12-llb. Rule 8 of Table 12-1, cited in Rolles’ reassignment orders, provides for transfer of a member who
does not possess the required military qualifications for his grade or specialty; or he does not meet the mental, moral, professional or physical standards of the Air Force ....
AFM 35-3 Table 12-1, at p. 12-13. Rolles’ orders, in addition to citing Rule 8, stated as the reason for his transfer “[ujnsatisfactory military performance and conduct.” Rolles’ transfer thus met all the requirements of Air Force regulations.
Rolles had no due process right to a hearing before he was transferred to the *1330Standby Reserve; the assignment and transfer of military officers are not subject to the requirements of Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 94 S.Ct. 1633, 40 L.Ed.2d 15 (1974) and similar cases. See Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 73 S.Ct. 534, 97 L.Ed. 842 (1953); Cortwright v. Resor, 447 F.2d 245, 246, 254 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 965, 92 S.Ct. 1172, 31 L.Ed.2d 240 (1972); Pauls v. Secretary of the Air Force, 457 F.2d 294, 297 (1st Cir. 1972).
As Mr. Justice Jackson wrote in Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 93, 94, 73 S.Ct. 540:
We know that from top to bottom of the Army the complaint is often made, and sometimes with justification, that there is discrimination, favoritism or other objectionable handling of men. But judges are not given the task of running the Army. The responsibility for setting up channels through which such grievances can be considered and fairly settled rests upon the Congress and upon the President of the United States and his subordinates. The military constitutes a specialized community governed by a separate discipline from that of the civilian.
THE CIVILIAN PROCEEDINGS
Rolles was employed by the Air Force Reserve as an Air Reserve Technician, a civilian position. The condition of this employment was that he maintain membership in the Active Reserve. Since he had been transferred to the Inactive Reserve General Hoff notified him on January 12, 1971 of the intention of the Air Force to remove him from his civilian position. The notice stated that he had been reassigned to the Inactive Reserve “for unsatisfactory Military performance under Rule 8, Table 12-1, AFM 35-3”. On January 15 this notice was amended to state the reason for his reassignment as “unsatisfactory Military performance and conduct under Rule 8, Table 12-1, AFM 35-3”. On January 22, 1971 Rolles responded to the notice of proposed removal as amended. In his response he characterized his reassignment to the Inactive Reserve and his proposed removal from his Civil Service job as “unjustified, unwarranted, and unsubstantiated”. He related his version of the events leading to his January 6, 1971 Reprimand.
On February 11, 1971 Rolles was removed from his Civil Service position and on February 19 his civilian employment was terminated.
The notice of removal of February 2, 1971 informed Rolles that he might appeal through Air Force appeals procedures and thereafter, if unsuccessful, to the Civil Service Commission. He appealed under the Air Force procedures. At the hearing before an examiner Rolles attempted to challenge the reasons for his removal from active reserve status. The examiner declined to receive evidence on this issue. He wrote:
f. We also find that the appellant’s loss of membership was for a reason within his control. As shown previously, management presented documentary evidence that the reassignment action of 11 January 1971 was based upon an official determination of unsatisfactory military performance and conduct, (Mgt Exs 6a and 6b). And, even though the appellant denies such deficiencies, and alleges a lack of opportunity for review of such findings through military proceedings, we cannot review the merits thereof for, like the reassignment action it precipitated, that judgment also was one which applied to the appellant in his military capacity. And the alleged lack of opportunity for military review is immaterial since, even if true, that neither rebuts the accuracy of management’s determination nor permits substitution of civilian procedures to review it. Therefore, since nothing in the record nullifies or contravenes management’s evidence, there is no basis upon which to deny the existence or validity of the determination in question. And it hardly can be held that the appellant had no control over the quality of his military performance or conduct.
*1331The removal of Rolles from his civilian employment was sustained.
From this adverse decision by the Air Force Rolles appealed to the Civil Service Commission. Again he attempted to challenge the reasons for his reassignment and again he was unsuccessful. The opinion of the Chicago Region of the Civil Service Commission stated:
As previously indicated, the appeal in this case appears to be based primarily on whether the reasons utilized by the Air Force Reserve in transferring appellant to an inactive reserve status on January 11, 1971, were valid; and as noted elsewhere within this decision, the validity and sufficiency of these reasons, whatever they may be, constitute conditions which are not reviewable by the Commission. Appellant’s reserve status was, and is, rightfully within the exclusive control of the military, and the Commission has no authority to go into matters beyond the military decision to terminate appellant’s active reserve membership.
The Civil Service Board of Appeals and Review sustained the decision of the Chicago Region. The Board said:
[T]he Commission’s policy with respect to the scope of appellate review by the Commission of a removal of an ART employee contemplates that membership in the active reserve is a condition of his employment, and that his loss of active reserve membership for military reasons within his control is a cause of action for removal in the interest of promoting the efficiency of the service. “Reasons within his control” within the meaning of the policy are reasons other than age or physical disability. Thus the agency in basing Mr. Rolles’ transfer to the inactive reserve for “unsatisfactory military performance and conduct” dropped him from active reserve membership for reasons within his control.
In summary, the Board finds that Mr. Rolles’ loss of active reserve membership was not arbitrary or capricious, since the loss appears to have been based on solely military reasons such as a military reprimand; that the loss was for reasons within Mr. Rolles’ control; that the loss is neither indicated nor alleged to have been based on nonmilitary reasons; and that through his loss of active reserve membership he no longer met an essential condition of his employment.
Rolles then brought this action in the District Court.
Without indulging in an extended discussion I draw these conclusions from the foregoing summary of the military and civilian proceedings.
1. Rolles’ avenue of appeal from the military decision to reassign him was to the Board for the Correction of Military Records. The Board could have recommended that the Reprimand be expunged and that he be returned to the Active Reserve. That avenue is still open to Rolles if the Board believes that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse his failure to file his appeal within the prescribed three years. 32 C.F.R. § 865.7(b).
2. The Civil Service Commission, a civilian agency, has no jurisdiction to reexamine disciplinary findings and actions or assignments and transfers in the military; specifically, the Commission has no jurisdiction to place upon the military the “burden of proving the allegations made by General Hoff” in a military context. In the civilian proceedings those allegations and General Hoff’s action were res adjudieata. Like the courts, the Civil Service Commission does not run the Army or the Air Force:
3. The Commission found that Rolles’ loss of membership in the Active Reserve was for military reasons within his control. It is conceded that Rolles was reassigned as a result of the Military Reprimand based upon his conduct as a military officer. I think the Commission was right in its interpretation that “reasons within his control” within the meaning of the Civil Service policy are reasons other than age or physical disability. Rolles was not reassigned because of *1332age or physical disability, and his conduct as an officer was certainly a matter within his control.
I would affirm the judgment of the District Court.