Briggs v. Dalton

• Decision Date: 28 February 1996
• Docket Number: Civil No. 95-00454 ACK.
• Citation: 939 F. Supp. 753
• Parties: Jackie R. BRIGGS, Plaintiff, v. John H. DALTON, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii

939 F. Supp. 753

Jackie R. BRIGGS, Plaintiff, v. John H. DALTON, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant.

Civil No. 95-00454 ACK.

United States District Court, D.Hawai`i.

February 28, 1996.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Eric A. Seitz, Thomas F. Feeney, Honolulu, HI, for plaintiff.

R. Michael Burke, United States Attorneys Office, Honolulu, HI, for defendant.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

KAY, Chief Judge.

BACKGROUND

Currently before the Court is the motion to dismiss of defendant John H. Dalton, Secretary of the Navy, against plaintiff Jackie R. Briggs and both parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. Briggs was a Captain in the Naval Medical Corps Reserve serving on active duty. He was detached for cause from command for "loss of confidence in his ability to command" based on two investigations into complaints of, inter alia, abuse of personnel, sexual harassment, misuse of government resources, attending to personal business during duty hours, and threats of retaliation allegedly made by Plaintiff against persons he perceived to have initiated complaints. Subsequently, Briggs was involuntarily released from active duty.

On March 4, 1993, Briggs filed his first suit against Frank Kelso, then Secretary of the Navy, and others, alleging that his detachment for cause was unlawful. On March 11, 1993, Briggs moved for a temporary restraining order. On March 15, 1993, Judge King denied Briggs' motions for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. On March 19, 1993, Briggs appealed to the Ninth Circuit. On April 12, 1993, Briggs filed a notice of dismissal. On June 8, 1995, following a denial of his appeal to the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Briggs filed the instant suit against defendant Dalton.

On February 26, 1996, the Court heard Defendant's motion to dismiss and both parties' motions for summary judgment. Both parties appeared through counsel. Upon considering the papers filed by all parties, the arguments of counsel, and the record, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant's motion to dismiss, GRANTS Defendant's motion for summary judgment, and DENIES Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment.

FACTS

Plaintiff Jackie R. Briggs is a licensed, board certified doctor of osteopathic medicine. He joined the Navy Medical Corps in July 1979 at the age of 43 with the initial rank of lieutenant commander.

On October 3, 1988, the Department of the Navy, Bureau of Personnel (BUPERS), notified Briggs, then a Captain with the Naval Medical Corps Reserve serving on active duty, that he was authorized to serve on active duty until 1995, so long as he otherwise remained eligible for active Naval service.

On February 15, 1990, Briggs reported for duty with the Naval Medical Clinic, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. On November 22, 1991, Briggs assumed command of this clinic. On July 2, 1992, Admiral W.A. Earner, United States Navy, Commanding Officer of Naval Base, Pearl Harbor, who at the time was Briggs' commanding officer, received three "Hotline/Integrity and Efficiency" complaints passed on by the Commander-in-Chief, United States Pacific Fleet, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and the Chief, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (BUMED), Washington, D.C., alleging that Briggs had committed various forms of misconduct. See Defendant's Motion, Exhs. 4 and 5.

In response, Admiral Earner appointed an officer to investigate the allegations. Based on the officer's investigation, on July 9, 1992, Admiral Earner wrote to BUMED, requesting that the BUMED Inspector General provide an investigative team to travel to Hawaii to further investigate the allegations. This letter states in part:

During the course of the one officer investigation, more than a half dozen officers came forward with unsolicited complaints and made additional allegations of misconduct. Included in those allegations are issues of misappropriation of government services (obtaining medical care for ineligible relatives) and sexual harassment. Evidenced in those statements are a widespread disaffection among clinic personnel with what is perceived as Briggs' insensitivity to race or gender, coarse language and personal conduct, and harsh treatment of senior and junior personnel alike.

Defendant's Motion, Exh. 5. Also on July 9, 1992, Admiral Earner wrote Briggs and notified him that he was being investigated for "reports of irregularities in procedure and allegations of misconduct," including "poor judgement, ... a lack of perception and sensitivity to racial and gender issues, and ... serious deficiencies in ... leadership and management styles." Defendant's Motion, Exh. 6.

The inspection team was assembled, arrived in Hawaii and began a second investigation into the allegations and complaints against Briggs. The team comprised Capt. R.L. Martin, DC, USN; Capt. T.B. Olson, NC, USN; Cdr. J.K. Henebery, JAGC, USN; HMCM(SW) V.R. Chernak, USN; and YN1(SW) M.D. Smith, USN. Defendant's Motion, Exh. 7. The inspection team's report, dated July 17, 1992, concluded in part as follows:

After an extensive review of the facts as presented through hours of unsolicited testimony from members of the command, we must reluctantly recommend that Captain Briggs be relieved as Commanding Officer.... Enclosures (1) through (5) detail the incidents which provide the basis for this conclusion. However, our unanimous decision primarily stems from a perception of his leadership, or lack thereof, which is far more serious and damaging to the future of this command. Captain Briggs is totally incapable of seeing the error of his current behaviour, and has no clue of the deteriorating vital signs of his command. Were the expressions of fear, retribution or sexual harassment to be made by only the mediocre performers, convincing argument could be proposed supporting conspiracy against Briggs. The fact is, that allegations from the personnel assigned of unprofessional conduct on the part of Captain Briggs, run the gamut of rank and corps, from Lieutenant to Captain, male or female, whether Physician, Nurse, or Medical Service Corps. Most alarming ... is that even the bright, the gifted, the caring ... the very future of Navy medicine ... all are very intimidated by Captain Briggs. This must not be allowed to continue!!

Defendant's Motion, Exh. 7; Administrative Record ("AR"), vol. III at 143-44 and 156 (list of 30 people interviewed).

The report also detailed the team's findings concerning allegations (1) of sexual harassment; (2) that Briggs' daughter received medical care though ineligible; (3) that Briggs would retaliate against persons whom he perceived to be responsible for the Hotline complaints or whom he perceived were cooperating with the investigation; (4) that Briggs was frequently out of his office in the afternoons; (5) that Briggs' leadership style adversely impacts his command; (6) that Briggs improperly used his influence to have his daughter hired; and (7) of improprieties concerning one "Spectrum Partnership" agreement. Defendant's Motion, Exh. 7. The report concluded that allegations (1) through (5) were substantiated while allegations (6) and (7) were not. Id.

Based on the two investigations and the report, Admiral W.A. Retz requested of the Chief of Naval Personnel that Briggs be detached for cause from command of the Naval Medical Clinic for "loss of confidence in Briggs' ability to command." Defendant's Motion, Exh. 4. By memorandum dated July 17, 1992, Briggs was notified that he was detached for cause from command, in accordance with Naval Military Personnel Manual (PERSMAN) § 3410105. Defendant's Motion, Exh. 8.

Briggs was given until August 6, 1992, later extended to August 21, 1992, to respond to the notification of his detachment for cause (DFC), which he did by submitting a rebuttal with 80 pages of enclosures.

Admiral Retz' "SECOND ENDORSEMENT" dated September 14, 1992 contained new "adverse factual matter" and so was provided to Briggs for comment within 5 working days. After another extension, Briggs submitted his "THIRD ENDORSEMENT" on October 5, 1992. AR, vol. II at 251-64 (containing 14 pages of further rebuttal). Admiral Retz' "FOURTH ENDORSEMENT" dated October 8, 1995 was forwarded to the Chief of Naval Personnel, noting Briggs' contention in his "THIRD ENDORSEMENT" that the Naval Investigative Service failed to perform a complete investigation into the sender of an anonymous letter. AR, vol. II at 250.

From early December 1992 to late February 1993, Briggs was screened, per his request, for continuation on active duty so that he eventually could qualify for military retirement benefits. See Briggs Decl. at ¶¶ 13-14. Screening began December 2, 1992 when Lieutenant Ohles noted that Briggs wanted to appear before the Medical Officer Continuation Board, wanted 4 year multi-year special pay, would need an age 60 waiver to continue on active duty, and was not eligible for reserve retirement. See AR, vol. I at 43.

On December 16, 1992, the Chief of Naval Personnel approved Briggs' detachment for cause. AR, vol. II at 248. At some point during the period from December 18 to 21, 1992, Commander Shore, an intermediate level retention screener, noted "PERS-8 action affirmed SNO subject named officer being relieved for cause as the commanding officer Naval Medical Clinic, Hawaii in Dec. 1992. Due to his seniority and past assignment history, SNO is not ready sic distributable within the general medical officer community. Therefore can not support age waiver past 60 per SECNAV policy." AR, vol. I at 43 (emphasis in original).

On February 10, 1993, a Captain Brant noted three reasons not to retain Briggs: (1) his detachment for cause; (2) failure to maintain credentials in family practice for past 12 months; and (3) ineligibility for retirement absent an age waiver. AR, vol. I ...