Strickland v. United States

• Decision Date: 16 September 2005
• Docket Number: No. 05-5012.,05-5012.
• Citation: 423 F.3d 1335
• Parties: Michael STRICKLAND, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

423 F.3d 1335

Michael STRICKLAND, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-5012.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

September 16, 2005.

John B. Wells, of Slidell, Louisiana, argued for plaintiff-appellee.

Anthony J. Steinmeyer, Attorney, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief was Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General. Of counsel on the brief was Gregory R. Bart, Lieutenant Commander JAGC, Office of the Judge Advocate General, General Litigation Division, United States Department of the Navy, of Washington, DC. Of counsel were David M. Cohen, Director, Franklin E. White, Jr., Assistant Director and Gregory T. Jaeger, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC.

Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, RADER and LINN, Circuit Judges.

MICHEL, Chief Judge.

The United States ("Government") appeals the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims granting judgment upon the administrative record in favor of the plaintiff, Michael Strickland ("Strickland"). The judgment directed that Strickland's Naval record be corrected to expunge all references to the general discharge mandated by Naval regulations following Strickland's state court conviction of a sex offense, and that he be awarded three months of constructive service to qualify him for retirement.¹ Strickland v. United States, 61 Fed.Cl. 443 (2004). The trial court judgment nullified the decision of the Navy Assistant Secretary for Manpower and Reserve Affairs ("Assistant Secretary")² to leave the discharge record unchanged, treating it as ultra vires and treating the recommendation favoring correction by the Board for Corrections of Naval Records ("Board") as the final and correct decision. Because the Assistant Secretary's decision to reject the Board recommendation fell within the power expressly granted to each service Secretary by Congress in 10 U.S.C. § 1552(a)(1), we reverse and remand for adjudication on the merits of whether the Secretary's decision was arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or otherwise contrary to the law under the deferential standards for review on the administrative record.

I. Background

Strickland served for many years in the United States Navy without incident. In 1998, however, he was arrested and charged with a sex felony. Ultimately, he pled no contest to a misdemeanor charge of indecent exposure. Consequently, the Navy separated him with a General Discharge under Honorable Conditions because Navy regulations mandated such separation for that particular type of offense. See Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN) § 1910-144 (2005). In October 2001, Strickland filed a petition for relief, and the Board recommended to the Assistant Secretary that Strickland's discharge be set aside as unfair. In essence, the Board found that Strickland's plea was induced by erroneous advice from his commanding officer, who told him that such a conviction would not require his discharge. However, the Assistant Secretary disagreed with the Board's recommendation and denied Strickland's request. The Assistant Secretary found that factors other than the incorrect advice actually induced the plea, including fear of a felony conviction and incarceration, and large legal fees.

Strickland filed this action in the Court of Federal Claims seeking to overturn the Assistant Secretary's decision. On cross motions for judgment upon the administrative record, the trial court ruled in favor of Strickland. The trial court interpreted § 1552(a) to provide that the Board, not the Secretary or his designee, was the final authority regarding requests for military records corrections. The applicable portions of the statute are as follows:

(a) (1) The Secretary of a military department may correct any military record of the Secretary's department when the Secretary considers it necessary to correct an error or remove an injustice.... [S]uch corrections shall be made by the Secretary acting through boards....

....

(3) Corrections under this section shall be made under procedures established by the Secretary concerned. In the case of the Secretary of a military department, those procedures must be approved by the Secretary of Defense.

10 U.S.C. § 1552(a) (2000) (emphases added).

The trial court interpreted the first sentence of § 1552(a)(1) to mean that Congress has empowered the Secretary with the discretion to evaluate requests for correction of a military record. Strickland, 61 Fed.Cl. at 451. However, the trial court found that in the second sentence, specifically the "acting through boards" phrase, Congress eliminated the Secretary's discretion once the application for correction was submitted to the Board. Id. at 452. In addition, the trial court found no language later in § 1552(a) that expressly authorizes the Secretary to reject or modify the position of the Board. Id. The trial court stated that its interpretation of § 1552(a) was consistent with Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296, 103 S.Ct. 2362, 76 L.Ed.2d 586 (1983), in which the Supreme Court stated that "Board decisions are subject to judicial review." Id. at 303, 103 S.Ct. 2362. The trial court then concluded that Congress had delegated the final authority on whether to make corrections to each service's Board, not its Secretary, and ordered Strickland's Naval record corrected in accordance with the Board's recommendation. Id. at 451-52.

The Government moved for reconsideration, arguing that the trial court's decision contravened controlling precedent, namely Boyd v. United States, 207 Ct.Cl. 1 (1975), in which this court's predecessor, the United States Court of Claims, held that the Secretary has discretionary authority under § 1552(a) to disagree with the Board. Id. at 8. The Government also cited Sanders v. United States, 219 Ct.Cl. 285, 594 F.2d 804 (1979), which followed and further explained Boyd, as controlling precedent.

In response to the Government's motion, the Court of Federal Claims held that Boyd was invalid and thus not controlling as it conflicted with the Supreme Court's earlier holding in Civil Aeronautics Bd. v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 367 U.S. 316, 81 S.Ct. 1611, 6 L.Ed.2d 869 (1961). In that case, the Court held that an agency's power is defined "not [by] what the Board thinks it should do but what Congress has said it can do." Id. at 322, 81 S.Ct. 1611. That is, the agency cannot expand by regulation its powers beyond those Congress granted to it. Relying on Delta Air Lines, the trial court stated that the Boyd court had wrongly upheld the Secretary's authority to take final action because, in its view, Boyd relied on a regulation, rather than on § 1552(a)(1). Strickland v. United States, 61 Fed.Cl. 689, 690 (2004) ("Reconsideration"). Further, the trial court explained that Sanders was also invalid, determining it violated the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 704 (2000). The APA provides for judicial review only of "final" agency actions, yet Sanders recognized judicial review of decisions of both the Secretary and the Board. Having found reasons to its satisfaction for disregarding these two precedents, the trial court denied the Government's motion for reconsideration.

The Government timely appealed the trial court's decision. We have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

II. Discussion

The sole issue on appeal is whether the Assistant Secretary acted outside his statutorily-granted powers when he rejected the recommendation of the Board. For the many reasons stated below, we conclude that he did not, and that the trial court erred in interpreting § 1552(a) to mandate that the Assistant Secretary cannot reject a Board recommendation.

Statutory interpretation is, of course, a question of law, which we review without deference. See, e.g., Bowey v. West, 218 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed.Cir.2000). In the first sentence of § 1552(a)(1), Congress explicitly delegated to the Secretary plenary power and discretion to correct military records whenever he "considers it necessary to correct an error or remove an injustice." 10 U.S.C. § 1552(a)(1) (2000). In the second sentence, Congress required that "such corrections shall be made by the Secretary acting through boards...." Id. Unlike the trial court, we see nothing in the second sentence that bars the Secretary from rejecting the recommendation of the Board.

A.

Our interpretation of § 1552(a) complies, as it must, with the express holdings of the Court of Claims in Boyd v. United States, 207 Ct.Cl. 1 (1975) and Sanders v. United States, 219 Ct.Cl. 285, 594 F.2d 804 (1979). S. Corp. v. United States, 690 F.2d 1368, 1369 (Fed.Cir.1982) ("[T]he holdings of ... the United States Court of Claims ... shall be binding as precedent in this court."). In Boyd, the Air Force Board for Corrections of Military Records recommended that Boyd be reinstated after he was twice deferred for promotion and mandatorily retired, but the Secretary rejected the recommendation. 207 Ct.Cl. at 5. The Boyd court squarely held that while the Secretary was required to act through the Board pursuant to § 1552, he "has by regulation authorized by statute retained the authority to take such final action on board recommendations as he determines to be appropriate." Id. at 13-14 (emphasis added).

The trial court cast aside Boyd, holding that the Secretary attempted to "expand [his] congressionally mandated authority by regulation" when he declined to adopt the Board's recommendation. Reconsideration, 61 Fed.Cl. at 690 (emphasis added). We disagree. The trial court's emphasis on the regulations is misplaced. As the Boyd court correctly stated, although the Secretary "in correcting a military record is to act through a board of civilians," Boyd, 207 Ct.Cl. at 8, the statute authorizes...