Rodriguez v. Vuono

• Decision Date: 25 February 1991
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 91-1167(JAF).
• Citation: 757 F. Supp. 141
• Parties: Jorge E. RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. Gen. Carl VUONO, individually in his capacity as Secretary of the Army; et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

757 F. Supp. 141

Jorge E. RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. Gen. Carl VUONO, individually in his capacity as Secretary of the Army; et al., Defendants.

Civ. No. 91-1167(JAF).

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

February 25, 1991.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Harry Anduze-Montaño, Guillermo Ramos-Luiña, Pia Gallegos, San Juan, P.R., for plaintiff.

Lloyd Green, Trial Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Osvaldo Carlo-Linares, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Juan, P.R., for defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

FUSTE, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Jorge E. Rodriguez, a medical doctor, seeks to rescind an enlistment contract with the United States Army. Dr. Rodríguez was called to active duty in May of 1990, at which time he was ordered to report to Ft. Sam Houston, Texas, on July 15, 1990.¹ As of February 13, 1991, he had failed to report to any military facility for duty in response to the order. Dr. Rodríguez claims that the enlistment contract, which he admittedly signed, is voidable by him because he was fraudulently induced into believing that he could never be called to active duty, but that instead he would only be required to complete National Guard or Army Reserve service without the potential for active duty. In the alternative, assuming that the contract was valid, Dr. Rodríguez argues that he could not be sent to active duty without being properly certified as being physically "qualified" for service, and that due to a foot condition and asthma, he was not so qualified. There was a warrant outstanding for Dr. Rodriguez' arrest, since he has been formally classified as a deserter from the Armed Forces.

In addition to the ultimate relief of rescission of the contract, plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order against arrest, which we denied. Instead, we set the matter down for an expedited hearing. Dr. Rodríguez seeks a preliminary injunction against the military to forestall any effort on their part to try to enforce the enlistment contract.

This matter went to a hearing on February 13, 1990. On the morning of the hearing, the Army filed a motion to dismiss the matter or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. The Army argues the following points:

1) The claim referring to Dr. Rodríguez' physical fitness is a matter for internal Army administrative review, and plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies in that he has failed to take any administrative action at all. Consequently, the Army argues, this court lacks jurisdiction over the matter.

2) the action is properly viewed as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The "custodian" is Dr. Rodríguez' superior officer in western Texas. Therefore, the proper jurisdiction for this matter is the District Court for the Western District of Texas. It is implicit in this argument that the Army considers Dr. Rodríguez, although currently located in Puerto Rico, to be in the constructive custody of Army personnel in his assigned unit in Texas.

3) Finally, on the merits, the Army argues that the written contract between itself and the plaintiff is fully enforceable and is not voidable for the reasons advanced by the plaintiff.

I. Facts

A brief fact-finding was read into the record by the court at the conclusion of the hearing. We now summarize and supplement those findings.

1. Contract Validity

Jorge E. Rodríguez (now a medical doctor) was 17 years old in August of 1978. He was a college student at the University of Puerto Rico (UPR), majoring in Science. He signed up for the elective ROTC (Reserve Officers Training Corps) course. On August 14, 1978, Rodríguez signed a Student Contract with the ROTC program at UPR, as a "Non-Scholarship Cadet Enrolling in the Advanced Course." Since Rodríguez was a minor, the document was co-signed by his mother. The contract, in relevant part, states that:

In connection with my graduation and completion of the ROTC program, I will apply for appointment as commissioned officer in the Army, will accept such appointment if offered, and:

(1) (for non-prior service cadets) will serve as a commissioned officer for 6 years — to include an initial period of active duty of not less than 3 years — or, if the Army does not require my service on active duty, I will serve an initial period of active duty for training of 3 to 6 months and remain a member of and participate satisfactorily in the Reserve until the 8th anniversary of such appointment unless sooner relieved under other provisions.

The contract specifically provides that evasion of the contract, (i.e., refusing to apply for or accept a commission if offered following graduation), will result in immediate active duty. (Part 1, Subpt. c).

As a result of signing the contract, plaintiff received a monthly stipend from the Army of $100 per month for the time in which he was finishing his undergraduate studies. Plaintiff participated in a summer Army program at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

In 1980 plaintiff completed the ROTC course. In 1981 he completed his undergraduate studies. In accordance with the contract, he applied for and received a commission. In August of 1981, at age 20, plaintiff signed his "Oath of Office-Military Personnel" as a Second Lieutenant.

Plaintiff began medical school at the University of Puerto Rico in the fall of 1981. Although his commitment to the military came due following his graduation, he applied for and received a "delay" or deferral. The delay program allows an already commissioned officer to continue his studies at the post-graduate level, putting off the commitment already incurred during the college years until after the completion of post-graduate studies. To accept the delay, plaintiff signed an agreement which stated in relevant part:

An approved delay is subject to the conditions listed below.

a. The determination as to whether I will serve on active duty or active duty training as set forth in the Supplemental Agreement attached hereto upon termination of my delay status rests with the Department of the Army.

....

Having studied the above service requirements, I hereby volunteer for entry on active duty when and if my services are required. If I am excess to the needs of the active Army, I will fulfill the remainder of my statutory obligation by serving satisfactorily in the Ready Reserve.

The delay is valid for one year only, and must be renewed each year, at the discretion of the Army. Plaintiff chose the non-scholarship option, meaning that the Army would not pay plaintiff anything (stipend, tuition, or otherwise) during the period of the delay. The advantage for the Army in granting the delay is that the student eventually serves his or her time as a doctor, instead of a college graduate. Students choosing the scholarship program further increase their active duty commitment, in consideration for the scholarship money.

Plaintiff applied for and was granted a delay each year from 1982 through 1984. Each year he signed a form stating that "my active duty will be the month following the month and year indicated in item 8, unless I am authorized further delay for other reasons, and I will be scheduled for active duty as soon as possible after my active duty availability date." After completing medical school in 1985, plaintiff sought and received a further special deferment in order to pursue an internship and residency in orthopedic surgery. The form signed by plaintiff on August 6, 1984, at age 23, states that "I understand that I will be required to enter active duty at the completion of this program." The confirmation letter for this final deferment identified July 1990 as the active duty commencement date.

The Army activated plaintiff through an order issued in May of 1990, which required his presence in Texas in July of 1990. Plaintiff, who admits learning about the activation order by August 1990 at the latest, failed to show up as ordered. Instead, he made complaints about his status through Ohio Senator Metzenbaum's office.

Plaintiff testified that he made the decision to sign the original 1978 ROTC agreement after talking to the professors of the ROTC course at UPR. According to plaintiff, these professors told him that "it was a voluntary course," that it was appropriate for him, even though he had "no intention of entering the armed services." He testified that "the Army always told me they would be very flexible." He testified that he was given the impression that at the end of his college career, he could simply refuse to accept the commission, and that he would incur no obligation. When asked what he thought the $100 per month was for, he testified that it was merely a stipend, which helped to pay for cleaning uniforms and transportation to various ROTC activities. In essence, plaintiff testified that it was his belief that since he received only the stipend, and not a scholarship, he could only be forced into non-active duty in the Reserve or National Guard.

We find plaintiff's claim that he was told that he could simply refuse the commission at the end of college not credible. First, his testimony was less than convincing. Second, the statements are inherently unbelievable (that all the professors told him that there was no obligation under the contract). The contract itself is very clear about the obligation of the signer, and plaintiff shows us nothing to make us believe that statements were made which falsely induced him to believe that the plain language of the contract had a meaning other than what was written in it.

Plaintiff then testified that he signed the 1981 Oath of Office papers under duress. He testified that following college, he went to the ROTC office and told the officers there that he did not wish to seek or accept a commission, and that he had no intention of entering military service, but wished only to continue his medical studies. He testified that they became very angry with him and shouted that he was obligated to sign the documents. They told him that they could...