Covington v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 12 November 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1085.,72-1085. |
| Citation | 487 F.2d 660 |
| Parties | Marcus COVINGTON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald ANDERSON, Adjutant General of the Military Department of the State of Oregon, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Don H. Marmaduke, Charlen Merten (argued), Portland, Or., for plaintiff-appellant.
Lee Johnson, Atty. Gen., E. Nordyke, Asst. Atty. Gen., Portland, Or., John W. Osburn (argued), Salem, Or., for defendants-appellees.
Before MERRILL and TRASK, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON,* District Judge.
This appeal is from an order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees in an action by plaintiff-appellant, Marcus Covington, Jr., seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages for his suspension from flight status as a jet pilot with the Oregon Air National Guard (OANG). The defendants-appellees are officials of the Oregon Military Department.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss1 and, in the alternative, for summary judgment, basing their motion for summary judgment on the pleadings, a supporting memorandum, and numerous exhibits. In opposing the motion plaintiff relied upon the complaint, his affidavit, depositions of defendant-appellee Doolittle and three other officers of the Oregon National Guard, and a supporting memorandum. Following a hearing the court entered an order reading: "Defendants' motion for summary judgment is hereby granted."2
On January 7, 1971 the United States Department of Defense issued an order directing all Air National Guard units to reduce jet pilot strength to "authorized" levels by February 28, 1971. In Oregon this required a reduction from 38 to 34 pilots.
By direction of General Doolittle, Chief of Staff of the Oregon Air National Guard, Lt. Col. R. J. Schmidt, Commander of the 142d Fighter Group, wrote a letter on January 27, 1971 to all of the jet pilots informing them of the reduction order, requesting immediate notice from any pilot who contemplated early retirement, resignation, or transfer, and stating that "the next, and obvious step" would be "selection of pilots for involuntary separation." This would be done "by a special committee * * * representing all elements of the Squadron and Group". It was explained that the committee's determination would be based on the pilot's "total member" value, defined as "past performance as a pilot, an officer, and a participant in organizational activities, plus an estimate of future potential based on age, grade, current professional training, participation, civilian occupation and availability in the event of State or Federal emergencies."
There was no response to this letter from any of the pilots. On February 12, 1971 General Doolittle formed a "committee" of seven subordinate officers, all jets pilots potentially subject to suspension, to evaluate the pilots and recommend six for involuntary separation, not later than February 17, 1971.3
The committee met on February 13 and 14, with six voting members and one non-voting member acting as recorder. They excluded from consideration for suspension General Doolittle, Lt. Col. Bergen, who had just assumed command of the fighter squadron, and the members of the committee. All other pilots were discussed both favorably and unfavorably, but no personnel records or other written or documentary material were considered by the committee.
On February 14 the committee submitted its written report and, as instructed, recommended six pilots for involuntary separation, listing the six names in order of its preference for suspension, with Covington's name appearing second.4 Doolittle decided not to accept the first name recommended,5 but accepted the committee's recommendations on the next four pilots.
On February 18, 1971 Covington was notified by letter that he was "one of four pilots selected" and that he was "suspended from flying" effective that date. The notice stated that the "Selections considered all aspects of each pilot's total participation, production, availability and comparative potential in the program". Covington was given "the option of being assigned to a non-rated non-flight position or being separated from the Oregon ANG". Covington chose the first alternative and effective February 28, 1971 was reassigned to the position of civil engineering staff officer.
On March 4, 1971 the Assistant Adjutant General (Air) of the Oregon National Guard requested the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to suspend plaintiff and three other pilots "from flying status effective 22 February 1971 because of reassignment to non-rated positions". On March 12, 1971 by Order of the Secretaries of the Army and the Air Force Covington was officially suspended from flying status by the Chief of the National Guard Bureau.
In urging remand and entry of summary judgment in his favor, appellant contends that (1) officials of the Air National Guard violated Air Force Regulation No. 11-1 when they caused appellant "to lose his position as a jet pilot without a hearing and on the basis of an investigation by a board that (was) not impartial"; and (2) state officials, in reducing the peace-time strength of the state's Air National Guard for economic reasons, may not, in the absence of exigent circumstances, "constitutionally cause a jet pilot to lose his position without affording him any procedural due process".6 Appellees contend that (1) Air Force Regulation No. 11-1 "has no application to the exercise of discretionary authority to reassign or detail officers to duties other than flight duty"; and (2) "The exercise of the authority to appoint, assign, reassign, transfer or detail to and from units within the organized militia is discretionary and not subject to judicial review."
Air Force Regulation No. 11-1 (AFR 11-1) prescribes administrative practices for "the conduct of investigations by boards of officers". The "primary duty of a board is to develop and consider the evidence concerning the matter under investigation, to arrive at clear, consistent findings and, where required, to make recommendations."
Paragraph 6a of the regulation provides that "In every case in which the conduct, efficiency, fitness, or pecuniary liability of any person is to be investigated" the person concerned must be given written notice of the investigation "at a reasonable time in advance of the convening of the board". Paragraph 10a provides:
"A person whose conduct, efficiency, fitness, or pecuniary liability is under investigation will be extended the privilege of counsel, as provided in paragraph 8, will be permitted to be present at all open sessions of the board, to cross examine witnesses appearing against him, and to call witnesses and present evidence in his own behalf."
Paragraph 17 provides that "In all cases covered in paragraph 6a", the report of the proceedings shall be "submitted to the staff judge advocate for review as to legal sufficiency" before final action can be taken by the commanding officer.
It is undisputed that the committee appointed by General Doolittle did not conduct a hearing or otherwise comply with the procedures prescribed by AFR 11-1.7 We agree with appellees, however, that the regulation was not applicable to the procedures followed by the committee in recommending that appellant and three other pilots be suspended from flight status in compliance with the directive to reduce the jet pilot strength to the "authorized" level.
Considering the regulation in its entirety, it seems clear that it was intended to apply to investigations as a result of a charge of misconduct or where findings of the board may lead to a formal charge. Here there was no charge of malfeasance, misfeasance, lack of technical flying skill, or any other personal or technical deficiency.8 It is true, as appellant argues, that the committee considered his "conduct, efficiency, and fitness", but this was for the sole purpose of making recommendations to comply with the directive to reduce the number of pilots to the authorized strength of the unit.9
There was no regulation requiring the appointment of the committee. General Doolittle himself could have selected four pilots for suspension from flight status, free from the requirements of AFR 11-1, and without, as he put it, bothering anybody else. As will be discussed infra, Doolittle's action would not have been subject to judicial review, even if arbitrary.10
We conclude, as the district court apparently did, that AFR 11-1 did not apply to the committee's recommendation that appellant be suspended from flight status.
Appellant next contends that in the absence of exigent circumstances necessitating summary action, an air national guard pilot is entitled to a hearing before he may be removed from his position by state officials as part of a peace-time economy measure, and that the procedure here followed violated his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
In considering the reviewability of the action taken in this case, we note at the outset that the right of an air national guard pilot to seek judicial review is the same as that of any member of the Armed Forces of the United States. Under Art. I, § 8, cl. 16 of the Constitution of the United States, Congress is vested with the power to "provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia now National Guard, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." Congress enacted appropriate legislation pursuant to Art. I, § 8, cl. 16.11 "The Guard is an essential reserve component of the Armed Forces of the United States, available with regular forces in time of war."...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Helton v. United States
...94, 73 S.Ct. 534, 540, 97 L.Ed. 842 (1953). See Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 2440, 37 L.Ed.2d 407 (1975); Covington v. Anderson, 487 F.2d 660 (9th Cir. 1973); Mindes v. Seamen, 453 F.2d 197 (5th Cir. 1971); Arnheiter v. Chafee, 435 F.2d 691 (9th Cir. 1970); Doe v. Alexander, 510......
-
Wallace v. Chappell
...cert. denied, 441 U.S. 943, 99 S.Ct. 2161, 60 L.Ed.2d 1045 (1979); Arnheiter v. Chafee, 435 F.2d 691 (9th Cir. 1970); Covington v. Anderson, 487 F.2d 660 (9th Cir. 1973). Our cases do not, however, make clear which military decisions are reviewable and which are not. The task we face today ......
-
Thakkar v. United States
...to active duty status to entitle them to a higher pay grade. See, e.g. , Jablon , 657 F.2d at 1067 n.4 (citing Covington v. Anderson , 487 F.2d 660 (9th Cir. 1973) (noting that the court could not order the Air Force to call plaintiff to active duty status so he would be entitled to variabl......
-
Sebra v. Neville
...boundaries of the doctrine of unreviewability); Renicker v. Marsh, 640 F.Supp. 244 (N.D.Ohio 1986) (same). But see Covington v. Anderson, 487 F.2d 660, 664 (9th Cir.1973) (as an essential reserve component of the United States military, the National Guard is subject to the traditional rule ......