Court Opinion

ID: 9426851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:19:06.107856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:03.468345
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice White,
with whom The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Blackmun, and Mr. Justice Rehnquist join, dissenting.
Like the Court, I accept the Government’s interpretation of the relevant Navy Department regulations, but I do not agree *883with the majority’s view that because Congress intended by the VRB legislation irrevocably to promise a re-enlistment bonus to those who agreed in advance to re-enlist the regulations are invalid. As I see it, the legislation was not part of the re-enlistment agreement, which was executed in consideration of the pay, allowances, and benefits that would accrue during a continuance of the re-enlistee’s service. Those who executed re-enlistment agreements had no vested right in any particular level of pay, in any particular allowance or benefit, or in any particular total package of pay, allowances, or benefits. In this respect, I am in essential agreement with Judge Haynsworth’s opinion for the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Carini v. United States, 528 F. 2d 738 (1975), which concluded that cancellation of the VRB prior to the beginning of a re-enlistment period was not forbidden by law. I respectfully dissent.