McCracken v. United States, Civ. A. No. H-80-239.
| Decision Date | 05 December 1980 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. H-80-239. |
| Citation | 502 F. Supp. 561 |
| Parties | Gary L. McCRACKEN v. UNITED STATES of America; Harold Brown, Secretary of Defense; Eduardo Hidalgo, Secretary of the Navy; P. C. Conard, Commander, Naval Military Personnel Command; and W. S. Rich, Commanding Officer, USS Fulton (AS-11). |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
Robert I. Reardon, Jr., Shapiro & Reardon, P.C., New London, Conn., for petitioner.
George J. Kelly, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Richard Blumenthal, U. S. Atty., for the District of Connecticut, Hartford, Conn., for respondents.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
In this action, Petty Officer Gary L. McCracken of the United States Navy seeks a writ of habeas corpus, ordering his release from the Navy.1 McCracken argues that he signed the agreement extending his term of enlistment in reliance upon oral representations of a recruiter concerning the training he would receive in the service. He further alleges that the Navy failed to give him the two years of training which he was promised in return for the two-year extension of his term of enlistment. As a remedy for what he contends is the Navy's breach of a contractual obligation to him, McCracken claims that he is entitled to recission of that contract and his freedom from the military service with an honorable discharge.
After a hearing on McCracken's petition, held on September 22, 1980, and consideration of the parties' proposed findings of fact and briefs, the court concludes that: any misrepresentations concerning training which the recruiter made to McCracken created no contract between the petitioner and the Navy; the written agreement for the extension of the term of McCracken's enlistment is the only contract governing the Navy's obligations to McCracken; and the Navy has fulfilled its obligations to the petitioner under that contract. Accordingly, the petition is denied. Judgment shall enter for the respondents, dismissing McCracken's petition and complaint for other relief.2
In September 1975, McCracken went to a Navy recruiting office in San Antonio, Texas. There he spoke with Petty Officer Guadalupe Lopez, a Navy recruiter.3 McCracken took several tests to determine the programs and jobs for which he might qualify, and was told, after his tests had been scored, that he could undertake any training program other than the nuclear program.4 He then discussed a number of courses of training with Lopez.5 McCracken was interested in the Advanced Technical Field ("ATF") program; Lopez talked about this program with McCracken, and showed him several pamphlets and the portion of the Navy recruiting manual which described it.6
The petitioner recalled, at the hearing on his petition, that he read chapter 26 of the manual, concerning the ATF program; he was particularly interested in the communications training, which offered as options satellite communications, communications technical control and cryptographic equipment repair.7 The manual-which circumscribes the authority of Navy recruiting officers8-does not state that a recruit who participates in the ATF program is guaranteed two years of schooling in return for an additional two years of time as an enlisted man.9 To the contrary, the manual makes only the following limited guarantee about training:10
Enlistees in this program will be guaranteed only a specific "A" school (PHASE I training) with ultimate assignment to follow-on training (PHASE II) contingent upon satisfactory completion of "A" school with a standing in upper one-half of class and with the specific phase assignment based on current needs of the Navy in the ATF program. Personal desires of the individual will be considered in connection with the available training.
The recruiting manual which McCracken read makes no representations about the usefulness of Navy ATF schooling for jobs outside the military. Nor does it promise more than approximately 34 hours of training for enlistees who, like McCracken, train for positions in the "General Service communications area, afloat and ashore," as opposed to those who undertake submarine duty:11
McCracken left the recruiting office with the impressions-which he ascribes to things Lopez told him and to statements in the pamphlets which he read-that under the ATF program a recruit enlists for a four-year term and agrees to a two-year extension of that term, and that in exchange for the additional two-year service obligation the Navy offers two years of training, followed by a guarantee of four years of actual work experience in the field of the enlistee's training.12 Moreover, McCracken testified that Lopez had "assured" him that the communications equipment used by the Navy was the latest available.13 Finally, McCracken testified that Lopez told him that participation in the ATF program would give McCracken valuable training which would be useful in obtaining a civilian job after he had completed a six-year stint in the Navy.14
McCracken's testimony is at variance with that of Lopez. Although Lopez testified that he did not specifically recall his 1975 conversations with McCracken,15 he expressly denied that he ever represented to any recruit that ATF trainees were guaranteed two years of schooling, any particular placement after training, or anything else not sanctioned by the recruiting manual.16
Although McCracken was interested in the ATF program in September 1975, he did not enlist in the Navy then, because Lopez told him that there were no ATF openings at that time.17 McCracken waited until November 1975, when he returned to the recruiting office and told Lopez that he was ready to enlist; Lopez determined that there were still no openings in the ATF program, and informed McCracken of this fact.18 The petitioner then elected to join the Navy under a standard four-year enlistment contract, without provision for special training and without any special guarantee; under this agreement, McCracken entered the Navy in the E-1 pay grade.19 McCracken read and voluntarily signed this agreement on November 21, 1975.20
The petitioner reported to basic training (or "boot camp") at the Great Lakes Naval Station in Illinois. There, new recruits routinely were brought before Navy "classifiers" who reviewed their files (including the recruits' scores on the tests administered to them prior to enlistment), confirmed the classifications (if any) made at the time of enlistment, and described to the recruits their qualifications for special types of training or work.21 McCracken met such a "classifier" on December 15, 1975.22 The "classifier" asked the petitioner what he wanted to do in the Navy and reviewed McCracken's file; McCracken told him that he was interested in the ATF program, which had been explained to him by his recruiter in San Antonio.23 The "classifier" then told McCracken that there were openings in the ATF program, and that if he still wanted to enroll in that program, he could do so.24 McCracken evidently reaffirmed his desire to undertake ATF training,25 and the "classifier" typed up an agreement extending the period of the petitioner's enlistment for an additional two years and classifying him for the ATF program.26 McCracken read and voluntarily signed the agreement to extend the term of his enlistment on December 15, 1975.27
The agreement which McCracken signed is a one-page document, which states as the reason for the extension of his enlistment his desire for ATF training and accelerated advancement to pay grade E-4, as described in chapter 26 of the Navy recruiting manual.28 The agreement further states that the petitioner understands that the extension contract is binding upon its execution and may not subsequently be cancelled, except as provided in Article 1050150 of the Bureau of Naval Personnel Manual ("BUPERSMAN").29 McCracken also agreed to the understanding that "when I accept accelerated advancement to E-4 this agreement may not be cancelled whether or not I complete advanced training."30
The operative provisions of the agreement to extend McCracken's term of enlistment were the following:31
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Helton v. United States
...comport with due process; and (3) that a branch of the armed services has breached an enlistment contract. See id.; McCracken v. United States, 502 F.Supp. 561 (D.Conn.1980); Hickey v. Commandant of Fourth Naval Dist., 461 F.Supp. 1085 (E.D. Pa.1978); Myers v. Parkinson, 398 F.Supp. 727 Def......
-
US v. Schmitt
...representation ..." (Community Health Services, 467 U.S. at pp. 59-60, n10, 104 S.Ct. at pp. 2223-24, n10 1984 ) (See McCracken v. United States, 502 F.Supp. 561, 571 D.Conn.1980 citations omitted court denied estoppel defense and held that "unlike the plaintiff in Corniel-Rodriguez, who wa......
-
Rodriguez v. Vuono
...(1987); Pence v. Brown, 627 F.2d 872, 874 (8th Cir.1980); Brown v. Dunleavy, 722 F.Supp. 1343 (E.D.Va.1989); McCracken v. United States, 502 F.Supp. 561, 569, n. 62 (D.Conn. 1980). Courts have often assumed this to be the case without providing adequate support for the proposition that such......
-
Brown v. Dunleavy
...that "the cases construing such contracts constitute an evolving body of specialized federal common law...." McCracken v. United States, 502 F.Supp. 561, 569 n. 62 (D.Conn.1980). Under general contract principles, rescission of an enlistment contract is the proper remedy when military recru......