Kreis v. Secretary of Air Force, C.A. No. 85-1169.
| Court | United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia) |
| Writing for the Court | Daniel Schember, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff |
| Citation | 648 F. Supp. 383 |
| Parties | John F. KREIS, Plaintiff, v. SECRETARY OF the AIR FORCE, Defendant. |
| Docket Number | C.A. No. 85-1169. |
| Decision Date | 19 November 1986 |
648 F. Supp. 383
John F. KREIS, Plaintiff,
v.
SECRETARY OF the AIR FORCE, Defendant.
C.A. No. 85-1169.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
November 19, 1986.
Daniel Schember, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.
Linda A. Halpern, Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., James M. Kinsella, HQ USAF/JACL, Pentagon, Washington, D.C., for defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
REVERCOMB, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court upon consideration of the defendant's motion to
Plaintiff is an officer on active duty in the United States Air Force holding the rank of major. He was trained in and has experience in the security police field.
In April 1979, based on findings of an Air Force Inspector General investigation, plaintiff was relieved of his assignment to Headquarters Pacific Air Force (PACAF) Security Police. Additionally, plaintiff was given a written reprimand and received an Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) which was down-graded to reflect a low evaluation of potential and which contained negative comments. The reprimand was placed in an official Unfavorable Information File (IUF).
In early May, 1979 plaintiff received a change in assignment to a squadron operations position with less responsibility. This was identical to a position held by plaintiff years earlier when he was a captain. Also in May, 1979 plaintiff met with his commanding officer to discuss the written reprimand. At the conclusion of that meeting the commanding officer agreed to terminate the UIF. In July, 1980, a Correction Board panel, after reviewing previously unavailable testimony, unanimously determined that the "evidence ... presented creates sufficient doubt in our minds that the contested report is an accurate reflection of plaintiff's duty performance." Consequently the Board recommended the entire report be voided and the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force accepted the recommendation and ordered the report removed from the plaintiff's record. Inserted in its place was AF Form 77 dated July 17, 1980 stating the OER had been removed by the Secretary of the Air Force.
On July 21, 1980 a selection board convened and considered plaintiff for promotion to lieutenant colonel. Plaintiff was not selected. Plaintiff contended, that since there were only four days (two of which were weekend days) between the removal of the negative OER and the convening of the selection board, it was unlikely that the selection board had received the correction in time.
In May, 1981, plaintiff submitted an application to the Correction Board maintaining that the void created by his removed OER and the negative effects of A.F. Form 77 combined with his erroneous punitive 1979 assignment had prejudiced his opportunity for promotion. In October, 1981, the Correction Board denied plaintiff's application. Subsequently, plaintiff twice sought reconsideration of the Board's decision, during which time he was twice passed over for promotion. On January 10, 1986, the Board decided plaintiff's second request for reconsideration. The Board held the rater's portion of the 1979 OER, with the indorser's portion left blank, should be reinstated in plaintiff's record and the record so changed should be referred for promotion consideration by special selection boards for 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1985. Those special selection boards met in July, 1986 and each and all of them denied plaintiff promotion to lieutenant colonel. This action was filed in April, 1985 after denial of plaintiff's first request for reconsideration.
Defendant contends in its motion to dismiss that this Court lacks jurisdiction to determine liability or grant relief in this matter arguing that military promotions are nonjusticiable. Plaintiff argues, in his opposition, that while he recongizes the general rule that courts should defer to the military on matters typically committed to military discretion, he is only asking the Court to determine whether his record before the selection boards was complete and not misleading as to his qualifications for promotions and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kreis v. Secretary of Air Force, 87-5037
...appellant's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the entire complaint raised nonjusticiable claims. 648 F.Supp. 383 (D.D.C.1986). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for the district court to determine whether the Secretary's action was arbitrary or ......
-
Lawson v. United States, 86 Civ. 7816.
...F.2d 1026 (2d Cir.1984); United States v. Johnson, 467 F.2d 630, 637 (2d Cir.1972), cert. denied, 413 U.S. 920 93 S.Ct. 3069, 37 L.Ed.2d 648 F. Supp. 383 1042 (1973). In essence, Lawson's real claim is that he never made the alleged inculpatory statement to Agent Hubbard, despite the latter......
-
Kreis v. Secretary of Air Force, 04-5197.
...on the merits. I. The background to this appeal is set forth in Kreis I, 866 F.2d at 1509-11, and Kreis v. Sec'y of the Air Force, 648 F.Supp. 383 (D.D.C.1986). The only issue before the court is whether the Board's denial of Kreis's motion for reconsideration was contrary to law under its ......