Court Opinion

ID: 2963900
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:17:06.428919+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:32.680166
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        January 17, 1996        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                           
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1694 

                               MAJOR JAMES L. CADIGAN,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                     DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, BOARD FOR CORRECTION
                      OF MILITARY RECORDS AND TOGO D. WEST, JR.,
                                SECRETARY OF THE ARMY,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Cyr and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Mark Fitzsimmons on brief for appellant.
            ________________
            Donald  K.  Stern,  United States  Attorney,  and  Lori  J. Holik,
            _________________                                  ______________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.    We  have   carefully  reviewed  the
                      ___________

            district court record and  the briefs of the parties,  and we

            affirm the judgment of the district court for essentially the

            reasons set forth in the Order dated June 1, 1995.

                      Our decision is  not a reflection on  the merits of

            appellant's entitlement to the  Congressional Medal of Honor.

            The record in this case evidences Mr. Cadigan's extraordinary

            courage and service to his country, service which most likely

            saved the lives of two platoons of American troops in Germany

            in  1945.   Simply, as  the district court  found, it  had no

            power  to  review   the  decision  of  the  Army   Board  for

            Corrections  of  Military  Records; the  question  before the

            court  was  not  whether  it  had  jurisdiction  to  consider
                                               ____________

            appellant's  case, but  whether  the  question presented  was

            justiciable.
            ___________

                      Appellant does not complain that the Army failed to

            follow  a   mandate  contained  in  a   relevant  statute  or

            regulation, committed an unauthorized  act, or made a factual

            error  which rises to the level of  an injustice -- the kinds

            of claims  which  usually are  justiciable.   See  Dodson  v.
                                                          ___  ______

            United  States, 988 F.2d 1199,  1204 & n.6  (Fed. Cir. 1993).
            ______________

            Rather, appellant asserts that, under the facts he presented,

            the  Army  should  have  awarded  him  the  Medal  of  Honor.

            However, the decision whether to award a medal is one left to

            the complete discretion  of the military.   Wilson v.  United
                                                        ______     ______

                                         -2-

            States,  24 Cl. Ct. 842, 846  (1992) (the decision by the Air
            ______

            Force to award one  medal to plaintiff instead of  another is

            "purely a  discretionary one and therefore  is not reviewable

            by [a] court").  Indeed, the criteria for such awards are not

            within the realm of  judicial expertise, implicating  instead

            the "complex, subtle, and professional decisions" left by the

            Constitution  to the judgment of  the military.  See Gilligan
                                                             ___ ________

            v. Morgan, 413 U.S.  1, 10 (1973).  The cases appellant cites
               ______

            are not to the contrary as they involved justiciable matters.

            See, e.g., Swann v. Garrett, 811 F.Supp. 1336 (N.D.Ind. 1992)
            ___  ____  _____    _______

            (review of  the factual  question whether plaintiff  had been
                            _______

            awarded the Navy Cross).

                      Because this  case does  not present  a substantial

            question, the appeal  is summarily affirmed.   See Local Rule
                                                           ___

            27.1.

                                         -3-