Justia Military Law Opinion Summaries

The Navy began a program to design and build littoral combat ships (LCS) and issued a request for proposals. During the initial phase of the LCS procurement, FastShip met with and discussed a potential hull design with government contractors subject to non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements. FastShip was not awarded a contract. FastShip filed an unsuccessful administrative claim, alleging patent infringement. The Claims Court found that the FastShip patents were valid and directly infringed by the government. The Federal Circuit affirmed.The Claims Court awarded FastShip attorney’s fees and expenses ($6,178,288.29); 28 U.S.C. 1498(a), which provides for a fee award to smaller entities that have prevailed on infringement claims, unless the government can show that its position was “substantially justified.” The court concluded that the government’s pre-litigation conduct and litigation positions were not “as a whole” substantially justified. It unreasonable for a government contractor to gather information from FastShip but not to include it as part of the team that was awarded the contract and the Navy took an exceedingly long time to act on FastShip’s administrative claim and did not provide sufficient analysis in denying the claim. The court found the government’s litigation positions unreasonable, including its arguments with respect to one document and its reliance on the testimony of its expert to prove obviousness despite his “extraordinary skill.” The Federal Circuit vacated. Reliance on this pre-litigation conduct in the fee analysis was an error. View "FastShip, LLC v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2005, Prestonback was appointed as a West Point cadet and signed USMA Form 5-50, agreeing that “if [he] voluntarily fail[s], or because of misconduct fail[s], to complete the period of active duty . . . [he] will reimburse” the proportional amount of his educational scholarship and that “voluntarily fail" includes, "but is not limited to," failure to complete active duty because of conscientious objection, resignation, or marriage while a cadet. Form 5-50 derived from 10 U.S.C. 2005. After graduating, Prestonback was deployed to Iraq in 2010 and was promoted to First Lieutenant. He received his first negative officer evaluation report (OER), stating that he repeatedly “failed to follow direct lawful orders,” “lack[ed] initiative,” and that he had “received no fewer than six" counseling sessions. Prestonback acknowledged that these statements were correct. A third negative OER noted Prestonback’s repeated failure of physical fitness tests.In 2013, the Army discharged Prestonback, who was notified that he owed $30,352.01 in recoupment, based on the uncompleted time remaining on his service agreement. Prestonback filed an Application for Correction of Military Record, arguing that he was eliminated involuntarily, and Form 5-50 only requires recoupment for voluntary action or misconduct. The Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment in favor of the government. Because tuition assistance is encapsulated by military pay and benefit entitlements, Prestonback’s case is governed by statutory principles. Prestonback voluntarily failed to complete his active duty by substandard performance. View "Prestonback v. United States" on Justia Law

While serving in the Navy 1968-1970, Simmons experienced feelings of depression and homesickness. A VA physician diagnosed Simmons with situational depression but no permanent disability. Another VA physician diagnosed him with immature personality disorder and recommended he be discharged. In 1972, the VA awarded Simmons a non-service-connected pension on his polyarthritis claim. In 1974, Simmons sought additional compensation, asserting that his arthritis was service-connected and that he also had a nervous condition that justified compensation. The VA denied the claim. In 2005, after receiving a total disability rating for an unrelated asbestosis-based claim, Simmons claimed that there was clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in the 1974 decision, with respect to the denial of service connection, citing the presumptions of soundness and service connection in 38 U.S.C. 105(a) and 1111.The Board found that Simmons’s current psychiatric disorder was due to his non-service-connected arthritis and that the presumptions did not apply. The Veterans Court affirmed, finding that although the Board erred in analyzing the presumptions, that error was harmless because Simmons’s current disability was not causally related to his in-service condition. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that a failure to apply an evidentiary presumption is per se prejudicial. A per se rule of prejudice for failure to apply the presumptions would undo any proper VA finding that the claimant had failed to establish a causal nexus. View "Simmons v. Wilkie" on Justia Law

While serving in the Navy, 1972-1073, Merritt sustained a concussion in an automobile accident. In 2006, a VA psychologist prepared a note. stating that Merritt had “[s]ymptoms of bipolar disorder[, which] first began ... on active duty,” and that Merritt’s “work performance began to suffer” after the in-service accident. In 2010, Merritt sought disability benefits for bipolar disorder, anxiety, and personality disorders. The Board determined that Merritt’s psychiatric disorders were not service-connected, relying solely on an independent medical expert opinion. On remand, the Board again denied Merritt’s claim, stating that the VA psychology note was entitled to little probative weight, apparently because there was no evidence that the VA psychologist had access to Merritt’s records, and there was a discrepancy between that note and Merritt’s treatment records as to the length of time that Merritt was unconscious following the automobile accident. The Veterans Court affirmed, finding the Board’s error in not following the remand order harmless because the VA note “described no symptoms that . . . supported . . . a retrospective diagnosis” of bipolar disorder, and “there [was] no possibility that the Board could have awarded service connection based on [the note].”Merritt died; Mrs. Merritt was allowed to substitute herself as the surviving spouse. The Federal Circuit subsequently dismissed her appeal as moot. Mrs. Merritt did not preserve her claim by filing a formal claim with the VA within one year of Merritt’s death as required. View "Merritt v. Wilkie" on Justia Law

Sellers served in the Navy in 1964-1968, and in the Army, 1981-1996. He suffers from major depressive disorder (MDD). Sellers has a 2009 effective date for his disability benefits. He seeks an effective date of March 1996, the date of his formal claim seeking compensation for specific injuries to his leg, knee, back, finger, and ears. On his application, under “Remarks,” Sellers wrote “Request for s/c [service connection] for disabilities occurring during active duty service.” Sellers contends that the law in effect in 1996 requires his remarks to be understood as a claim for compensation for his MDD, although his claim in no way refers to MDD. The Veterans Court agreed with Sellers. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs challenged that decision.The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that Sellers is not entitled to an earlier effective date. A legally sufficient formal claim must identify, at least at a high level of generality, the current condition upon which the veteran’s claim is based. The Secretary’s duty to assist begins upon receipt of a formal claim that identifies the medical condition for which benefits are sought, which triggers the Secretary’s duty to obtain the veteran’s medical records, 38 U.S.C. 5103A(c)(1)(A), and then to fully develop the stated claim. Until the Secretary comprehends the condition on which the claim is based, the Secretary does not know where to begin to develop the claim. View "Sellers v. Wilkie" on Justia Law

Jones served on active duty with the Army in 1967-1974 and in the Army National Guard in 1987-1990. In 1994, he sought disability benefits for a nervous disorder and a leg wound. A VA regional office granted service connection for a leg scar but found that disability non-compensable and denied the claim for a nervous condition. Jones did not appeal. In 2002, Jones filed a request to reopen his claim, asserting that he was assaulted by muggers while stationed in Germany, which resulted in his developing PTSD. The regional office denied his request. In 2008, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals granted the request to reopen, directing the regional office to obtain additional information from two individuals with knowledge of the assault. In 2010, the regional office granted Jones service connection for PTSD and a schizoaffective disorder, with a 100% disability rating effective from October 2002, when he sought to reopen his claim. Jones sought to have the effective date made retroactive to 1994. In 2016, after Jones’s death, the Board held that the effective date was 2002. The Veterans Court and the Federal Circuit affirmed, citing 38 C.F.R. 3.156(c); the decision in Jones’s favor was based on evidence created in 2003 and 2008, which did not exist in 1994. View "Jones v. Wilkie" on Justia Law

Carr served Air Force active duty, 1976-1980, earning 45 months of education benefits under Chapter 34 (Vietnam-era GI Bill), Carr used 41 months and 11 days of those benefits for his own education before the entire Chapter 34 program expired. After September 11, 2001, Carr returned to active duty and would have been eligible for 36 additional months of benefits under Chapter 33 (Post-9/11 GI Bill), but 38 U.S.C. 3695 limited him to a cumulative total of 48 months. Carr transferred those benefits to his daughter, 38 U.S.C. 3319, who used paid for two semesters. Due to a VA error, she initially did not receive payments to cover the final days of the Fall 2010 semester and was informed, incorrectly, that she had exhausted her benefits. Later, it was discovered that she had 19 days of benefits remaining; one day was applied to the Fall 2013 semester. Chapter 33 permits extensions of education benefits “in a roundabout way” to the end of the semester, 38 C.F.R. 21.9635(o)(1). The regional office, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, and the Veterans Court rejected Carr's Chapter 33 claim.The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded for consideration of the unaddressed regulatory challenge. . The Veterans Court resolved the appeal through statutory interpretation and did not address the transferred benefits regulation; 38 U.S.C. 3695(a)’s aggregate multi-program benefits cap does not preclude end-of-term extensions of benefits authorized under individual benefits programs. View "Carr v. Wilkie" on Justia Law

Attorney Ravin represented veteran Cook on a claim for past-due disability benefits. Their agreement provided for a contingent fee and contemplated that VA would withhold the fee from any past-due benefits awarded and pay that amount directly to Ravin under 38 U.S.C. 5904(d)(3). Within days of executing that agreement, Ravin sent a copy to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, where it was date-stamped on December 11, 2009. No copy of the agreement was submitted to the Regional Office (RO) “within 30 days of the date of execution,” as required by 38 C.F.R. 14.636(h)(4). The RO awarded Cook past-due benefits in April 2010. On April 13, 2010, the RO’s Attorney Fee Coordinator searched for any attorney fee agreement and determined that “no attorney fee decision is required” and “[a]ll retroactive benefits may be paid directly to the veteran.” The RO paid the past-due benefits to Cook. On April 27, 2010, Ravin mailed a copy of Cook’s direct-pay fee agreement to the RO. The RO informed Ravin that it had not withheld his attorney’s fees because the agreement was “not timely filed.”The Veterans Court and Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s denial of Ravin’s claim. Section 5904(d)(3) does not mandate withholding and direct payment; 38 C.F.R. 14.636(h)(4)'s submission requirement is valid. Ravin’s fees have not been forfeited; he may use all available remedies to obtain them from Cook, per their agreement. View "Ravin v. Wilkie" on Justia Law

Air Force officers who hold the grade of major must appear before a promotion board, 10 U.S.C. 611(a), 628(k); an officer who is twice passed over for promotion is typically discharged. An officer who would otherwise be discharged may remain in active service upon selection by a continuation board. Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1320.08 provides that an officer “shall normally be selected for continuation if the officer will qualify for retirement . . . within 6 years… [except] in unusual circumstances.”In 2011, then-Major Engle, who had served in active duty for over 14 years, was passed over for promotion for the second time. A Selective Continuation Board met. Engle would have been within DoDI 1320.08’s protective window and had no disqualifying information in his record. The Secretary of the Air Force had, however, instructed Boards to decrease the protective threshold and reversed the presumption in favor of continuation.Engle was discharged. Months later, Engle was involuntarily called up from the reserves, deployed to Kyrgyzstan, and promoted to Lieutenant Colonel. Engle continues to serve, without the retirement benefits and additional active duty pay for which he would have qualified if he had been continued.The Federal Circuit reversed with respect to Engle’s claim, citing the Administrative Procedures Act. The Secretary does not have the discretion to rewrite the DoDI. While the military has wide decision-making discretion, it is not wide enough to justify the process employed here. The regulation is meant to protect individuals who have spent most of their lives in service to this country View "Baude v. United States" on Justia Law

Under the GI Bill, the VA provides monetary benefits to veterans enrolled in “approved” “course[s] of education,” 38 U.S.C. 3483. Approval must be provided by the state approving agency (SAA) for the state where the educational institution is located. For online courses, the educational institution must obtain approval from the SAA where the institution’s “main campus” is located. The VA may discontinue educational assistance, after following certain procedures, if this requirement is not met. Ashford is a for-profit educational institution that provides online courses to veterans and others. In November 2017, the VA sent a Cure Letter to Ashford stating that Ashford’s online courses were not approved by the correct SAA, expressing its “inten[t] to suspend payment of educational assistance and suspend approval of new enrollments and re-enrollments [for Ashford’s online programs] in 60 days unless corrective action is taken.” The Letter noted the availability of a hearing before the Committee on Educational Allowances. Ashford sought review, contending that the Cure Letter “announces” new “rules” and that 38 U.S.C. 502 provided the court with jurisdiction to review those alleged rules. The Federal Circuit dismissed the petition, finding that the Cure Letter is not rulemaking or any other reviewable action; it is also not a final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act. View "Ashford University, LLC v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law