Court Opinion

ID: 9440288
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 15:01:43.421928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:46.003483
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1399   Document: 44     Page: 1   Filed: 08/03/2023

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                CRAIG JOHNSON, JR.,
                  Plaintiff-Appellant

                            v.

                   UNITED STATES,
                   Defendant-Appellee
                 ______________________

                       2022-1399
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:19-cv-00904-ZNS, Judge Zachary N. Somers.
                  ______________________

                 Decided: August 3, 2023
                 ______________________

    WILLIAM CASSARA, I, Cassara Law Office, Evans, GA,
 argued for plaintiff-appellant.

     JOSHUA A. MANDLEBAUM, Commercial Litigation
 Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
 tice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also
 represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY, DOUGLAS K. MICKLE.
                  ______________________

    Before LOURIE, HUGHES, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 HUGHES, Circuit Judge.
Case: 22-1399    Document: 44      Page: 2    Filed: 08/03/2023

 2                                             JOHNSON v. US

     Craig Johnson, Jr. appeals a decision from the United
 States Court of Federal Claims granting judgment on the
 administrative record. Because Mr. Johnson was not enti-
 tled to additional notice and a separation board prior to his
 transfer out of the Active Reserve Program and into the In-
 dividual Ready Reserve, we affirm.
                               I
     This case involves a complex network of military poli-
 cies and orders that were promulgated to help our armed
 forces run effectively and efficiently. To understand
 whether Mr. Johnson was afforded the proper procedural
 safeguards under these authorities, we must first step back
 and examine the statutory and regulatory framework in
 which they fit.
                              A
     Title 10 is the portion of the United States Code that
 establishes the United States Armed Forces. It is divided
 into five subtitles, and Subtitle E provides an overview of
 the “Reserve Components.” 10 U.S.C. Subtitle E (§§ 10001–
 18506). Each regular component of the armed forces has a
 corresponding reserve component. See id. § 101(c). The
 stated purpose of the reserve components is:
     to provide trained units and qualified persons
     available for active duty in the armed forces, in
     time of war or national emergency, and at such
     other times as the national security may require, to
     fill the needs of the armed forces whenever more
     units and persons are needed than are in the regu-
     lar components.
 Id. § 10102. Relevant here is the Marine Corps Reserve,
 which is “organized, administered, trained, and supplied
 under the direction of the Commandant of the Marine
 Corps.” Id. § 10109.
Case: 22-1399    Document: 44      Page: 3    Filed: 08/03/2023

 JOHNSON v. US                                               3

     Chapter 1209 of Title 10 outlines various ways in which
 reserve members can be ordered to active duty. One section
 in this chapter, § 12310, allows the Secretary to:
     order a member of a reserve component under the
     Secretary’s jurisdiction to active duty pursuant to
     section 12301(d) . . . to perform Active Guard and
     Reserve [(AGR)] duty organizing, administering,
     recruiting, instructing, or training the reserve com-
     ponents.
 Id. § 12310(a). Similarly, § 10211 dictates that “each
 armed force shall have officers of its reserve components
 . . . to participate in preparing and administering the poli-
 cies and regulations affecting those reserve components.”
 Id. § 10211.
     To fill the AGR positions in the Marine Corps Full-
 Time Support (FTS) program, the Department of the Navy
 created the “Active Reserve (AR) Program,” outlined in an
 order from the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Marine
 Corps Order (MCO) 1001.52J, “Active Reserve (AR) Sup-
 port to the United States Marine Corps Reserve,” June 6,
 2011. 1 Order 1001.52J establishes the AR Program as a
 subset of the Marine Corps Reserve to maintain “a cadre of
 well-trained and experienced full-time [reserve component]
 Marines in order to facilitate the integration of the Total
 Force and assist the Active Component (AC).” MCO
 1001.52J at 2. The Order provides that reserve marines
 who are a part of the AR Program perform the following
 tasks:

     1   The June 2011 version of Marine Corps Order
 1001.52J was the version provided in the Joint Appendix
 and was the active version during the relevant period for
 this appeal. That version of the order is available at J.A.
 584–623. On February 15, 2019, it was cancelled and up-
 dated by Marine Corps Order 1001.52K.
Case: 22-1399      Document: 44     Page: 4   Filed: 08/03/2023

 4                                              JOHNSON v. US

       (1) organizing, preparing and administering poli-
       cies and regulations affecting the [United States
       Marine Corps Reserve]; (2) training and instruct-
       ing the [United States Marine Corps Reserve]; (3)
       recruiting and retention for the [United States Ma-
       rine Corps Reserve]; and (4) administration of
       [United States Marine Corps Reserve] personnel.
 Id.
      Attached to Order 1001.52J is the AR Program Policy
 Manual. Id.; see also id. at 1-1. The AR Program Policy
 Manual explains that “a Marine who has successfully reen-
 listed for a second tour on the AR Program” is a “Career
 Designated Marine.” Id. at 3-13. Although “[a] standard
 tour of duty at each location is considered 36 months,” the
 Policy Manual states that “Career Marines having 12
 months or more remaining until their [end of active service
 date] may also receive [permanent change of station] Or-
 ders.” Id. at 3-5.
                               B
      This case concerns what happens when a Career En-
 listed Marine with more than 12 months remaining until
 their end of active service date refuses permanent change
 of station (PCS) orders that would require extending their
 active service. The Policy Manual itself does not provide
 specific guidance on this point. However, the Policy Man-
 ual does not purport to be the sole authority on the AR Pro-
 gram and instead points us to other authorities that detail
 the proper procedures.
     First, for example, the Policy Manual refers the reader
 to a different order, Marine Corps Order P1300.8R, for
 “general assignment guidance.” Id. (citing “reference (n)”);
 see also id. at 1 (identifying reference (n) as Marine Corps
 Order P1300.8R). Marine Corps Order P1300.8R explains
 what happens in a situation where a Career Enlisted Ma-
 rine receives PCS orders that extend beyond their original
Case: 22-1399     Document: 44      Page: 5    Filed: 08/03/2023

 JOHNSON v. US                                                5

 end of active service (EAS) date. Specifically, this order ex-
 plains that a Marine in that situation has two options, ei-
 ther (1) “extend/reenlist in order to have the required
 active service,” or (2) if they do not wish to “extend/reenlist
 in order to qualify for assignment[,] [they must] sign [a]
 page 11 SRP entry.” Marine Corps Order P1300.8R
 ¶ 1102. 2
      Second, the Policy Manual elsewhere refers to the Ma-
 rine Administrative Message as a source regarding the AR
 Enlisted Career Force. MCO 1001.52J at 3-4, 3-17. The Ma-
 rine Administrative Message explains that “Career Desig-
 nated Marines who refuse to reenlist or extend in order to
 execute PCS [orders] will be released from the AR Program
 at the effective date of the orders, or EAS, whichever is ear-
 lier, with an RE-3O enlistment code.” Marine Administra-
 tive Message 552/12.
     Third, the Policy Manual cites to the then-active ver-
 sion of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Man-
 ual: Marine Corps Order P1900.16F (Separation Manual).

     2   Marine Corps Order P1300.8R was not provided in
 the Joint Appendix, but ¶ 1102 was quoted by the Court of
 Federal Claims at J.A. 6. Further, the Board cited to the
 October 4, 1994 version of Marine Corps Order P1300.8R
 at J.A. 558. Thus, for the portions cited herein, this court
 takes judicial notice of the October 4, 1994 version of Ma-
 rine Corps Order P1300.8R, which is a government docu-
 ment and is publicly accessible at MCO P1300.8R W CH 1-
 8.pdf (SECURED) (marines.mil). See, e.g., Mobility Workx,
 LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, 15 F.4th 1146, 1151 (Fed. Cir.
 2021) (holding that this court can take judicial notice of
 publicly accessible government documents because they
 “are capable of being accurately and readily determined
 from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be ques-
 tioned,” as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b))
 (cleaned up).
Case: 22-1399    Document: 44     Page: 6    Filed: 08/03/2023

 6                                             JOHNSON v. US

 Id. at 1, 3-2, 3-14, 3-17. The Separation Manual provides
 procedures for separating Marines under different circum-
 stances. Marine Corps Order P1900.16F at 1-3. 3 It defines
 “separation” as
     [a] general term which includes dismissal, drop-
     ping from the rolls, revocation of an appointment
     or commission, termination of an appointment, re-
     lease from active duty, release from custody and
     control of the Marine Corps, or transfer from active
     duty to the: [Individual Ready Reserve (IRR)], Fleet
     Marine Corps Reserve, Retired List, Temporary or
     Permanent Disability Retired List, or Retired Re-
     serve and similar changes in an active or reserve
     status.
 Separation Manual at 1-8 (emphasis added). Discharge, on
 the other hand, is defined as, “[c]omplete severance from

     3   Not all portions of the Separation Manual cited in
 this opinion were included in the excerpts of the Separation
 Manual provided to the court in the Joint Appendix. How-
 ever, the record before the Court of Federal Claims in-
 cludes more excerpts from the Separation Manual and uses
 the June 6, 2007 version. Johnson v. United States, No.
 1:19-cv-00904-ZNS, D.I. 39-1 (Fed. Cl. 2021). Most, but not
 all, Separation Manual citations herein can be found in the
 longer excerpted version. Id. However, for citations that
 cannot be found even in the longer excerpt, this court takes
 judicial notice of the version of Marine Corps Order
 P1900.16F dated June 6, 2007, which is a government doc-
 ument and is publicly accessible at https://www.us-
 mcu.edu/Portals/218/CEME/courses/MCO%20P1900.16F
 %20with%20CH%201%20and%202%20SEPSMAN.pdf?ver
 =2018-09-24-142242-170. See, e.g., Mobility Workx, 15
 F.4th at 1151; see also supra n.2.
Case: 22-1399    Document: 44      Page: 7    Filed: 08/03/2023

 JOHNSON v. US                                              7

 all military status gained by appointment, enlistment, or
 induction.” Id. at 1-5.
     Under ¶ 1005(3) of the Separation Manual, “Marines
 separated before their expiration of enlistment will be
 transferred to the IRR subject to the guidance in para-
 graphs 6311.3 and 6401.5.” Id. at 1-15. Paragraph 6311.3
 sets forth basic notification requirements for when a ma-
 rine is transferred to the IRR, rather than discharged. Id.
 at 6-58. Paragraph 6401.5 explains when transfer to the
 IRR, rather than discharge, is appropriate, and it directs
 the separation authority to “use the procedures in chapter
 1 when transferring Marines to the IRR.” Id. at 6-86. Chap-
 ter 1 provides “general instructions on separations,” in-
 cluding guidance for preparing a marine’s separation forms
 and assigning the marine a reenlistment code. Id. at 1-42.
 It directs the reader to Appendix I, which is a list of reen-
 listment codes and their corresponding meanings. Appen-
 dix I describes the reenlistment code at issue here, RE-3O,
 as being assigned when a marine “[r]efuse[s] to extend or
 reenlist to obtain the obligated service necessary to carry
 out PCS or UDP.” Id. at I-3. It further explains that the
 RE-3O enlistment code makes the reservist ineligible for
 future promotions, such as a promotion to warrant officer.
 Id.
                              C
     Mr. Johnson is a Career Designated Marine as defined
 in the Policy Manual. He first enlisted as a reservist in the
 Marine Corps Reserve in 1999, and in 2006 he extended his
 enlistment for 23 months to affiliate with the AR Program.
 After his end of active service date in 2008, Mr. Johnson
 reenlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve as a member of the
 AR Program for another three years. In 2011, he reenlisted
 as a member of the AR Program again, this time for four
 years. After reenlisting in 2011, his then-scheduled end of
 active service date became November 9, 2015.
Case: 22-1399    Document: 44      Page: 8    Filed: 08/03/2023

 8                                              JOHNSON v. US

     In March 2013, the Marine Corps issued PCS orders for
 Mr. Johnson to relocate from Virginia Beach to Phoenix to
 serve as a recruiter in the AR Program for 36 months. His
 report date for his new station was June 9, 2013, at which
 point Mr. Johnson would only have 29 months left on his
 reserve contract. After receiving his PCS orders, Mr. John-
 son tried to have his orders changed to stay closer to home
 because of personal hardship. After he was unsuccessful in
 that attempt, Mr. Johnson chose not to comply with his or-
 ders and stayed in Virginia Beach.
     In making this decision not to comply with his orders,
 Mr. Johnson was counseled by his Sergeant Major that de-
 clining to execute his PCS orders would result in adminis-
 trative consequences. This discussion was memorialized in
 the following email from his Sergeant Major to his Master
 Sergeant:
       SSgt Johnson has elected not to execute his
       orders. I have spoken to him and he knows the
       outcome of his decision. . . . [His] reasoning is
       that it would create a hardship for his family.
       I have tried to get him to use sound judgment
       in his decision making, but unfortunately he
       came to this conclusion.
 J.A. 136.
     On June 11, 2013, after failing to execute his PCS or-
 ders, Mr. Johnson signed the following Administrative Re-
 marks form (a “page 11”), which was entered into his
 service record:
       I have been assigned reenlistment eligibility
       code RE-3O. Reason: I will not reenlist/extend
       to comply with PCS orders. I have been ad-
       vised that Marines assigned this code are not
       eligible for promotion, reenlistment, commis-
       sioning or warrant officer programs, special
       education      programs     or    involuntary
Case: 22-1399    Document: 44     Page: 9    Filed: 08/03/2023

 JOHNSON v. US                                             9

       separation pay unless specifically authorized
       by the [Commandant of the Marine Corps]. I
       have been given the opportunity to submit a
       statement and that statement if submitted,
       will be filed on the document side of my [Ser-
       vice Record Book].
 J.A. 82 (emphasis added).
     On June 30, 2013, Mr. Johnson was transferred out of
 the AR Program and into a different component of the Ma-
 rine Corps Reserve: the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR).
 He was also issued a DD Form 214 (certificate of discharge
 or release from active duty) reflecting the RE-3O code re-
 garding his re-enlistment eligibility.
     A few months later, on September 23, 2013, the Marine
 Corps Reserve mobilized Mr. Johnson from the IRR back to
 the AR Program, and he was stationed in Quantico, Vir-
 ginia. J.A. 3. On December 13, 2013, Mr. Johnson was pre-
 liminarily approved for appointment to warrant officer, but
 he was notified on January 14, 2014 that his appointment
 would be delayed due to the RE-3O code in his record. J.A.
 547–48. In 2016, Mr. Johnson reenlisted in the Marine
 Corps Reserve for two years.
                              D
      On January 18, 2017, Mr. Johnson petitioned the
 Board of Naval Corrections to remove the assigned RE-3O
 reentry code and grant his appointment to warrant officer.
 This petition was denied, and his request for the Board to
 reconsider was also denied. On June 20, 2019, Mr. Johnson
 filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims alleging wrongful
 discharge and denial of military pay. On November 2, 2019,
 the Court of Federal Claims remanded the case back to the
 Board for issues not relevant to this appeal.
     On July 29, 2020, the Board issued its decision on re-
 mand, reasoning that Mr. Johnson’s separation and trans-
 fer were not the same as the type of separation that results
Case: 22-1399    Document: 44      Page: 10   Filed: 08/03/2023

 10                                            JOHNSON v. US

 in termination of employment, and thus his situation did
 not “fall under the purview of the [Separation Manual]
 chapter regarding total separation (or firing) from service.”
 J.A. 532. It found that Mr. Johnson’s separation did not
 qualify as an early separation from service because his con-
 tract was for four years of service in the Marine Corps Re-
 serve, not a contract to remain in the AR Program element
 of the Reserve for four years. By being transferred to the
 IRR, he remained part of the service.
     After the Board’s decision on remand, both parties filed
 motions for judgment on the administrative record. The
 Court of Federal Claims granted the government’s motion
 on October 28, 2021. The court reasoned that Mr. Johnson
 was properly separated and transferred to the IRR pursu-
 ant to the authority in Marine Corps Order P1300.8R
 ¶ 1102, Marine Administrative Message 552/12, and Ma-
 rine Corps Separation Manual 1005 ¶ 3. The court further
 concluded that Mr. Johnson’s transfer to the IRR did not
 entitle him to additional procedural benefits in Chapter 6
 of the Separation Manual, including greater notice and a
 separation board. Mr. Johnson filed a motion to alter or
 amend judgment, which was denied on December 9, 2021.
 Mr. Johnson appeals.
                              II
     We have jurisdiction to review Mr. Johnson’s appeal
 under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). We review the grant of a mo-
 tion for judgment on the administrative record de novo.
 Barnes v. United States, 473 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir.
 2007). We do “not disturb the decision of the corrections
 board unless it is arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, or
 unsupported by substantial evidence.” Chambers v. United
 States, 417 F.3d 1218, 1227 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The trial
 court’s legal conclusions are not reversed unless incorrect
 as a matter of law, and factual findings are not disturbed
 unless clearly erroneous. Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d
 1153, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Issues of statutory or
Case: 22-1399    Document: 44      Page: 11   Filed: 08/03/2023

 JOHNSON v. US                                            11

 regulatory interpretation are reviewed de novo. Strickland
 v. United States, 423 F.3d 1335, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
                             III
     Mr. Johnson’s appeal raises a single issue: whether he
 was entitled to greater notice and a separation board prior
 to his release from the AR Program and transfer to the IRR.
 We hold that he was not entitled to these additional proce-
 dures and thus affirm.
     Mr. Johnson was properly released from the AR Pro-
 gram and transferred to the IRR pursuant to the proce-
 dures set forth in the AR Program Policy Manual, Marine
 Corps Order 1300.8R ¶ 1102, Marine Administrative Mes-
 sage 552/12, and Marine Corps Separation Manual 1005
 ¶ 3. There is no dispute Mr. Johnson qualifies as a Career
 Designated Marine under the AR Program Policy Manual,
 Order 1001.52J at 3-13, nor do the parties dispute that he
 was properly given PCS orders to relocate to Phoenix in
 June 2013. Id. at 3-5.
     Mr. Johnson’s refusal to accept those PCS orders and
 relocate to Phoenix properly triggered the procedures set
 forth in Marine Corps Order 1300.8R ¶ 1102, Marine Ad-
 ministrative Message 552/12, and Marine Corps Separa-
 tion Manual 1005 ¶ 3. These orders and regulations apply
 to this exact scenario, and none of them require greater no-
 tice or a separation board prior to this type of separation.
 Instead, they dictate that a Career enlisted Marine who re-
 fuses PCS orders will not be discharged, but rather will be
 separated from the AR Program and transferred to the IRR
 with a page 11 notice and an RE-3O reenlistment code. See
 Marine Corps Order 1300.8R ¶ 1102 (“Career enlisted Ma-
 rines who do not extend/reenlist in order to qualify for as-
 signment will sign [a] page 11 SRB entry [that includes an
 RE-3O reenlistment code].”); Marine Administrative Mes-
 sage 552/12 (“Career designated Marines who refuse to
 reenlist or extend in order to execute PCSO will be released
 from the AR Program at the effective date of the orders, or
Case: 22-1399    Document: 44     Page: 12    Filed: 08/03/2023

 12                                            JOHNSON v. US

 EAS, whichever is earlier, with an RE-3O reenlistment
 code.”); Separation Manual 1005 ¶ 3 (“Marines separated
 before their expiration of enlistment will be transferred to
 the IRR subject to the guidance in paragraphs 6311.3 and
 6401.5.”).
     This is the same procedure Mr. Johnson was afforded
 here. After refusing his PCS orders, he was given a page 11
 form to sign and was transferred to the IRR with an RE-
 3O reenlistment code. He was not discharged because he
 was not “complete[ly] sever[ed] from all military status.”
 Separation Manual at 1-5. Rather, consistent with para-
 graphs 6311.3 and 6401.5 of the Separation Manual, he
 was given a DD Form 214 that reflected his release from
 active duty and an RE-3O reenlistment code. Even though
 not required by any of the regulations, he was also coun-
 seled by his supervisor that refusing his PCS orders would
 have the above-described consequences. None of the AR
 Program Policy Manual, Marine Corps Order 1300.8R
 ¶ 1102, Marine Administrative Message 552/12, or Marine
 Corps Separation Manual 1005 ¶ 3 require any more notice
 than Mr. Johnson was provided, nor do they require a sep-
 aration board. Thus, this process satisfied all the relevant
 orders and regulations.
      Still, Mr. Johnson argues on appeal that he was enti-
 tled to greater notice and a separation board prior to being
 released from the AR Program and transferred to the IRR.
 We are not persuaded. Starting with his notice argument,
 it is not entirely clear from the briefs what additional pro-
 cedures, apart from a separation board, Mr. Johnson would
 have liked to receive. The only provision cited in Mr. John-
 son’s opening brief as requiring “specific notification safe-
 guards” is ¶ 6311.3(a) of the Separation Manual.
 Appellant’s Br. 12. But Mr. Johnson has not pointed us to
 any notification procedure listed in ¶ 6311.3(a) that was
Case: 22-1399    Document: 44    Page: 13    Filed: 08/03/2023

 JOHNSON v. US                                             13

 required and that he did not receive upon transfer to the
 IRR. 4
     And even had this argument been fully briefed, there
 would be substantial evidence to find that the more limited
 notification requirements of ¶ 6311.3(a) were met here.
 Paragraph 6311.3(a) provides:
     Upon transfer to the IRR, the member will be noti-
     fied of the following:
     (1) The characterization of service upon transfer
     from active duty or the Selected Marine Corps Re-
     serve to the IRR, and that the characterization of
     service upon completion of the military service ob-
     ligation in the IRR will be the same.
     (2) The date upon which the military service obli-
     gations will expire.
     (3) The date by which the member must submit ev-
     idence of satisfactory completion of the conditions
     set forth in paragraph 6303.4b(1)(c).
 The very next subsection of ¶ 6311.3, subsection (b), then
 makes clear that “the [additional] notification procedures
 in paragraph 6303” are only required if “the separation au-
 thority proposes to discharge the Marine with a character-
 ization of service less than honorable.” Separation Manual
 ¶ 6311.3(b). Otherwise, no further proceedings are re-
 quired. Id.
     Here, as explained above, Mr. Johnson was not dis-
 charged—he was transferred to the IRR from the AR Pro-
 gram. When he was released from the AR Program, he was
 given a DD Form 214 that listed his character of service as
 “honorable,” thereby satisfying the first notification

     4  Indeed, this paragraph of the Separation Manual
 was not even provided to this court in the Joint Appendix.
Case: 22-1399    Document: 44      Page: 14    Filed: 08/03/2023

 14                                             JOHNSON v. US

 requirement in ¶ 6311.3(a). J.A. 115. His DD Form 214 also
 satisfied the second notification requirement because it ex-
 plains that his reason for separation was “completion of re-
 quired active service.” J.A. 115. This clarifies that he was
 not separated from the Reserve completely, just from the
 AR Program (the active service), and therefore the date
 upon which his military service in the Reserve would ex-
 pire stayed the same as was listed in his most recent en-
 listment contract: 48 months from November 10, 2011. J.A.
 2. That his service would extend to the date on his contract,
 regardless of whether he was in the AR Program or in the
 IRR, is further supported by the statement in the AR Pro-
 gram Policy Manual indicating that a reservist’s contrac-
 tual term reflects service in the Reserve generally, not the
 AR Program specifically. Marine Corps Order 1001.52J
 (“Contractual time in the reserve component does not guar-
 antee continued service in the AR Program.”). Finally, the
 third notification requirement is inapplicable to Mr. John-
 son because ¶ 6303.4b(1)(c) applies only to “[m]embers of
 Reserve components not on active duty,” and Mr. Johnson
 was being transferred from an active-duty role in the Re-
 serve to the IRR. Thus, Mr. Johnson has identified no por-
 tion of ¶ 6311.3(a) that was required and not met here.
     Given that we see no authority requiring some greater
 level of notice than Mr. Johnson received, we are left only
 with Mr. Johnson’s argument that he was entitled to a sep-
 aration board under ¶ 6303 of the Separation Manual. We
 are similarly unpersuaded by this argument because
 ¶ 6303 is inapplicable here. Paragraph 6303 begins by stat-
 ing “[t]he procedures and requirements outlined in this
 paragraph are applicable under any specific reason for sep-
 aration contained in section 2.” Separation Manual at 6-42
 (emphasis added). But Mr. Johnson was not separated for
 any of the reasons listed in section 2. Id. at 6-16–6-40. Even
 if he were, not all the reasons for separation in section 2
 require a separation board under section 3 (¶ 6303). Id. at
 6-60–6-63 (providing a table that indicates whether greater
Case: 22-1399    Document: 44      Page: 15    Filed: 08/03/2023

 JOHNSON v. US                                              15

 notice or a separation board is required for each reason
 listed in section 2). Given that (a) Mr. Johnson’s separation
 was for a reason other than the reasons listed in section 2,
 and (b) even if it were to potentially fit within one of these
 reasons, Mr. Johnson cannot point us to a specific category
 so that we might determine whether a separation board is
 necessary for that category, we are left to conclude that the
 ¶ 6303 separation board procedures are inapplicable to Mr.
 Johnson’s case.
     Mr. Johnson argues that ¶ 6303 should nonetheless ap-
 ply because his transfer to the IRR falls within the Separa-
 tion Manual’s definition of “separation,” Separation
 Manual ¶ 1002(50), and because chapter 6 states:
     The procedures and instructions in this chapter
     pertain to the administrative separation of Ma-
     rines before completion of active or obligated ser-
     vice. Unless specifically authorized by separate
     order, only the reasons contained in this chapter
     may form the basis for a Marine’s separation,
     whether voluntary or involuntary.
 Id. ¶ 6001. But even if Mr. Johnson’s release from the AR
 Program and transfer to the IRR does fall within the broad
 definition of “separation” in ¶ 1002, nothing in the Separa-
 tion Manual implies that every type of separation requires
 a separation board. First, as discussed above, not every
 type of separation reason contained in Chapter 6 requires
 a separation board, let alone separation reasons not in
 Chapter 6. And second, the court was correct in concluding
 that the reason for Mr. Johnson’s separation was not one
 of the reasons in Chapter 6 because it was “specifically au-
 thorized by separate order[s],” id. ¶ 6001, including Marine
 Corps Order 1300.8R ¶ 1102, Marine Administrative
Case: 22-1399    Document: 44      Page: 16    Filed: 08/03/2023

 16                                             JOHNSON v. US

 Message 552/12, 5 and Marine Corps Separation Manual
 1005 ¶ 3.
      We have considered Mr. Johnson’s remaining argu-
 ments and find them unpersuasive. Because we agree with
 the Court of Federal Claims that Mr. Johnson was not en-
 titled to additional notice or a separation board prior to his
 release from the AR Program and transfer to the IRR, we
 affirm.
                         AFFIRMED
                            COSTS
 No costs.

      5  Mr. Johnson argues that “[t]here is nothing giving
 [the Marine Administrative Message] the authority to sep-
 arate Marines early, as was done via [the Marine Adminis-
 trative Message] 552/12.” Appellant’s Br. 15. But we need
 not consider this argument because even if correct, his sep-
 aration was also authorized by Marine Corps Order
 1300.8R ¶ 1102 and Marine Corps Separation Manual
 1005 ¶ 3.