Justia Military Law Opinion Summaries

The appellant, a former Marine, sought to upgrade his 1986 discharge from “Other Than Honorable” to “Honorable.” He argued that his misconduct while in the service was the result of undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive disorder, which he claimed were caused by racial harassment and traumatic experiences during his time in the Marine Corps. He supported his application with a psychologist’s assessment diagnosing him with PTSD and major depressive disorder linked to his service. The Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) also considered an advisory opinion from a Navy psychologist, who concluded that while some of the appellant’s misconduct might be attributable to PTSD or depression, not all incidents were clearly connected.After the BCNR denied his request for a discharge upgrade, the appellant brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. He argued that the BCNR did not apply Department of Defense guidance requiring liberal consideration for discharge-upgrade applications involving PTSD and that the Board failed to adequately explain its reasoning. The district court, applying an “unusually deferential” standard of review to the BCNR’s decision, found that the Board’s denial was supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious. The court granted summary judgment for the Secretary of the Navy and denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the administrative record de novo but accorded the BCNR “unusual deference” under governing law. The court held that the BCNR properly considered all relevant Department of Defense memoranda and the evidence linking the appellant’s mental health conditions to his misconduct. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding that the BCNR’s decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious and adequately explained. View "Taylor v. Cao" on Justia Law

The defendant served in the military and received disability-related unemployability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, which required recipients to notify the VA if they became employable. After founding a nonprofit in 2019 and working full-time, the defendant did not report his employment to the VA and continued receiving benefits. He was indicted for theft of government funds under 18 U.S.C. § 641, with a jury later convicting him. The indictment included notice of possible criminal forfeiture.In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, the government moved for a preliminary order of forfeiture before sentencing, but the court did not address it. At sentencing, the court imposed prison time, supervised release, and restitution, but did not orally address forfeiture. The court allowed the defendant to file supplemental briefing after sentencing. Following the hearing, the district court issued several written judgments and amended judgments, none of which initially included forfeiture. The government repeatedly moved to amend the judgment to include forfeiture. Eventually, the district court issued an order imposing forfeiture and amended the judgment to reflect this, several months after sentencing. The defendant appealed, arguing errors in the handling of forfeiture under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2 and violations of his right to presence under Rule 43(a) and the Due Process Clause.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that, although the district court violated Rule 32.2(b)(4)(B) by failing to impose forfeiture at sentencing and to include it in the judgment, this rule is a time-related directive subject to harmless-error review. The error was harmless because the defendant had notice and opportunity to contest forfeiture. The court also found no violation of the defendant’s due process right to presence, and although Rule 43(a) was violated, it did not affect substantial rights. The oral sentence and written judgment were not in conflict. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Harrell" on Justia Law

Michael C. Baxley served in the Army beginning in 1974. After various instances of misconduct, he was identified as a drug abuser and entered the Army’s rehabilitation program. In 1975, he was designated a rehabilitation program failure, and subsequent further misconduct led to a recommendation for discharge. During his discharge proceedings, evidence of his rehabilitation failure was introduced, and he was discharged “under other than honorable conditions.” Years later, his discharge status was upgraded to “under honorable conditions (general),” but without “honorable” status, he was unable to access certain veterans benefits. In 2018, following a VA determination of a service-connected mental health condition, Baxley requested the Army Board for Correction of Military Records to upgrade his discharge to “honorable,” arguing that exempt evidence was improperly used against him and that relevant Army guidance regarding mental health conditions was not followed.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed the Board’s denial of Baxley’s request and granted summary judgment to the Board. The court found no violation of the Army’s Exemption Policy and concluded that the Board adequately considered the Army guidance for discharge upgrades related to mental health conditions (the Kurta Memorandum).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the administrative action de novo. The Court held that the Board’s decision regarding the Exemption Policy was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to meaningfully assess whether evidence of Baxley’s rehabilitation failure was developed as a direct or indirect result of protected communications during his rehabilitation program, as the policy requires. Therefore, the Court reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment on this issue, vacated the Board’s decision, and remanded for further proceedings. However, the Court affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment regarding the Kurta Memorandum, finding the Board’s consideration sufficient and not arbitrary or capricious. View "Baxley v. Driscoll" on Justia Law

The case concerns an attorney who represented a veteran in seeking disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The veteran originally filed a claim in 2007 for a bilateral hip disability and received a rating in 2008, which was later increased. In 2018, the Board issued a final denial for a higher rating for the left hip, which was not appealed and thus became final. In 2021, after the veteran underwent left hip replacement surgery, the attorney assisted with a new claim, resulting in a significantly increased rating and an award of past-due benefits. The attorney sought fees from this award, arguing that her work fell within the statutory scheme permitting attorney’s fees for representation after notice of the agency’s initial decision.The Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied the attorney’s request for fees, reasoning that the December 2021 rating decision was the initial decision for the increased rating claim, and since the attorney had not performed compensable work after that decision, she was not entitled to fees under 38 U.S.C. § 5904(c)(1). The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed, concluding that the September 2021 claim for increased compensation was a new claim, not part of the same “case” as the original 2007 claim, and thus the attorney’s work prior to the December 2021 decision was not compensable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the matter de novo and affirmed the Veterans Court’s decision. The court held that, for purposes of attorney’s fees under § 5904(c)(1), a new claim for increased disability based on new evidence and circumstances is not part of the same “case” as the original claim. The attorney was not entitled to fees for work performed prior to the December 2021 rating decision. The judgment was affirmed. View "JACKSON v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

The defendant engaged in a series of shootings at military-related sites in Northern Virginia in late 2010, and was apprehended in June 2011 at Arlington National Cemetery, carrying materials linked to his offenses. He later pleaded guilty to three charges: injuring government property, using a firearm during a crime of violence, and attempting to injure a veteran’s memorial. As part of a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, he accepted a twenty-five year sentence and waived his right to appeal within statutory limits. After being found competent despite a schizophrenia diagnosis, he was sentenced accordingly and did not initially appeal.Years later, the defendant sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit previously vacated his firearm conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and remanded for resentencing on the remaining counts. On remand, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held a new competency hearing and discussed whether to postpone sentencing to monitor medical compliance. Ultimately, the court declined a lengthy postponement due to statutory and constitutional concerns, resentenced the defendant to consecutive maximum terms totaling 240 months, and ordered a pre-release hearing to plan for his transition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed four challenges to the resentencing. Two claims were deemed forfeited for not being raised at sentencing, and the remaining two failed under the abuse-of-discretion standard. The court held that the defendant did not demonstrate a plain error under Tapia v. United States regarding the imposition of a sentence to promote rehabilitation or medical compliance. The court further found the sentence to be both procedurally and substantively reasonable, and rejected arguments regarding the district court’s authority to order a pre-release hearing. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "US v. Melaku" on Justia Law

A veteran who served during the Vietnam Era was awarded service connection for PTSD in 1993, effective from May 1991, with a 10% disability rating. In 2019, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals found clear and unmistakable error in the earlier decision and granted an earlier effective date of May 1983. The Board remanded the claim to the regional office to implement the earlier date and determine whether a higher rating was warranted. After the regional office denied a higher rating in a supplemental statement of the case, the Board preemptively issued its own denial before the veteran filed a required notice of disagreement.The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims reviewed the Board’s action after the appellant argued the Board lacked jurisdiction, seeking vacatur and remand. The government conceded the Board lacked jurisdiction but argued for vacatur and dismissal, not remand. The Veterans Court vacated the Board’s decision and dismissed the appeal, concluding it lacked jurisdiction since no notice of disagreement had been filed. The court emphasized the veteran had a separate, properly noticed appeal pending regarding the merits of the regional office’s denial, and thus removed the ultra vires Board decision as an obstacle.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed whether the veteran qualified as a “prevailing party” under the Equal Access to Justice Act for purposes of seeking attorney’s fees. The Federal Circuit held that vacatur of the ultra vires Board decision materially altered the legal relationship between the parties and constituted success on the merits of the judicial review action, conferring prevailing party status. The court reversed the Veterans Court’s denial of fees and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "GREENIDGE v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

A group of current and prospective military service members challenged a new federal policy that disqualified individuals with a history of gender dysphoria or those perceived as expressing a gender identity different from their sex assigned at birth from serving in the military. This policy, known as the Hegseth Policy, was issued following an executive order by the President in 2025. The policy went further than prior military policies by not only excluding individuals with a recent diagnosis of gender dysphoria or those undergoing transition, but by broadly disqualifying anyone with any history of the condition or who had attempted social transition, regardless of current fitness or stability.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. After extensive hearings, the District Court found the Hegseth Policy to be motivated by animus against transgender individuals, characterizing it as a blanket ban that was not justified by legitimate military interests. The court applied intermediate scrutiny, concluded that the policy was not substantially related to the stated goals of military readiness or cohesion, and found that it violated the plaintiffs’ right to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction, preventing enforcement of the policy against both current servicemembers and those seeking to enlist.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the government’s appeal of the preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeals held that the Hegseth Policy, as applied to current servicemembers, was likely unconstitutional because it relied on arbitrary classifications and was motivated at least in part by impermissible animus. The court affirmed the preliminary injunction for current servicemembers but vacated it as to individuals seeking to join the military, reasoning that the equities and public interest differed for prospective enlistees. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court’s opinion. View "Talbott v. USA" on Justia Law

A divorced couple shares joint legal and physical custody of their three minor children, alternating weekly custody as part of their agreement. After their separation, the father resided at his parents’ home, where he exercised his custodial time with the children. When he received orders for a seven-month overseas military deployment, he filed an emergency petition to allow his parents to assume all of his court-ordered custodial time during his absence. The mother objected to this arrangement, expressing concerns about the children’s wellbeing and her strained relationship with the paternal grandparents.The Madison County Chancery Court held a hearing and denied the father’s request to delegate his full custodial time to his parents. Instead, the court granted the grandparents extended temporary visitation during the deployment and ordered the mother to facilitate the children’s communication with their father and make them available during his leave, as required by statute. The father moved for clarification and reconsideration, arguing that the trial court misapplied Mississippi Code Section 93-5-34 by not maintaining the “status quo,” but the trial court denied his motion.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed whether the chancery court correctly interpreted Section 93-5-34 and whether it abused its discretion by granting only visitation rather than full custodial delegation. The Supreme Court held that the statute does not permit a deployed parent to unilaterally delegate custodial time; the authority to determine or delegate custody rests with the court, and the best interest of the child remains paramount. The court further found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to deny full custodial delegation and instead grant substantial visitation to the grandparents. The judgment of the Madison County Chancery Court was affirmed. View "Solop v. Solop" on Justia Law

The appellant, a veteran who served in the Marine Corps from 1983 to 1987, sought service-connected disability benefits for several conditions, including PTSD, migraine headaches, and frostbite injuries to his hands and feet. Over the years, he received increasing ratings for these conditions and was awarded special monthly compensation (SMC) at the (l) rate for aid and attendance needs due to PTSD. In April 2020, he filed a notice of disagreement regarding a VA regional office decision. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals later granted him additional SMC awards, including at the (o) and (r) rates, for combinations of his disabilities, but did not assign effective dates for these new awards, instead leaving that determination to the regional office.Following a joint motion for partial remand, the Board reconsidered and again awarded the additional SMC ratings but still withheld assigning effective dates. The appellant challenged this before the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, arguing the Board was required to decide the effective dates for the new SMC awards. The Veterans Court concluded that determining the effective date for an SMC award is a separate, downstream issue from entitlement and that the Board was not required to decide this issue when awarding SMC. Therefore, it dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and held that the Veterans Court did not commit legal error in its jurisdictional determination. The Federal Circuit agreed that the assignment of effective dates for SMC awards is a downstream issue for the regional office to decide and is not automatically before the Board unless specifically appealed. Consequently, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Veterans Court’s dismissal in part and dismissed the remainder of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "DAVIS v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

A married couple, both active-duty military members, separated after nearly two decades of marriage and executed a notarized separation agreement in 2020 while stationed in Okinawa. The agreement provided that the wife would receive $1,500 per month in maintenance until divorce, 20% of the husband’s military retirement pay upon his retirement, and be named as beneficiary of his Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). The wife later initiated a divorce in South Dakota, and the parties submitted a stipulation and settlement agreement incorporating key provisions from their separation. The divorce decree was filed in February 2021. Over time, the husband failed to make some required maintenance payments and, after retiring, did not pay the wife her portion of his retirement nor complete the SBP paperwork. The wife sought contempt and modifications, while the husband argued compliance was impossible due to deficiencies in the decree.The Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit, Charles Mix County, declined to hold the husband in contempt, finding the divorce decree’s orders too vague for enforcement. The court denied modification of the property division, found no fraud or coercion, and refused to vacate the decree. It reduced the wife’s retirement share from 20% to 16.1% using a coverture formula, ordered payment of $5,000 in arrears plus 8% interest, and instructed the husband to effectuate the SBP. Both parties appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that reducing the wife’s retirement share below the agreed 20% was error, as was applying an 8% rather than the statutory 10% interest rate to arrears. The court remanded for correction of those issues, but affirmed the denial of contempt, refusal to vacate the decree, and the exclusion of additional payments for stimulus or tax refunds. The court also found no due process violations or abuse of discretion in declining to take sworn testimony. View "Shevling v. Major" on Justia Law