Justia Military Law Opinion Summaries

Reeves served as a heavy mortar crewman during combat offensives, 1942-1945, and was awarded three Bronze Stars. In 1981, Reeves filed a claim seeking service-connected disability benefits, with a medical opinion, stating that Reeves had bilateral, nerve-type hearing loss in 1962, attributable to noise exposure or to treatment with quinine for malaria. He also submitted records of an audiogram and statements from officers with whom he had served. The board denied the claim, stating that hearing loss documented in 1962 was too remote from active service. Reeves did not appeal. In 2004, the board granted an application to re-open, citing new evidence of treatment from 1946 to 1954, and awarded him service-connected disability benefits, effective 2002. In 2006, Reeves sought revision to an earlier effective date. The board denied the motion. The Veterans Court affirmed, rejecting an assertion that the evidence of record in 1983 was such that the board had no choice but to resolve in his favor that his hearing disability was incurred in service. Reeves died in 2011; the Federal Circuit substituted his widow and reversed. The Veterans Court misinterpreted 38 U.S.C. 1154(b) in rejecting the clear and unmistakeable error claim. View "Reeves v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

After the Air Force announced it would conduct a reduction-in-force (RIF) at Luke Air Force Base, the Union made several proposals about how the RIF should be conducted and asked the Air Force to enter into negotiations. The Air Force claimed it had no duty to negotiate over three of the Union's proposals, prompting the Union to appeal the FLRA. The FLRA determined that the Air Force had an obligation to negotiate over two of the three disputed proposals and the Air Force subsequently petitioned for review of the unfavorable rulings. Because the Air Force's objections to the FLRA's rulings were either waived or unavailing, the petition for review was denied. View "U.S. Dept. of the Air Force v. FLRA" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed the district court's dismissal of his claim challenging his separation under the Army Qualitative Management Program (QMP) for failure to "meet Army standards." Appellant argued that because an Administrative Separation Board (ASB) found that a preponderance of the evidence did not support the allegation that he had wrongfully used marijuana, his separation under the QMP was unlawful. The district court found, and the court agreed, that because appellant did not specifically challenge the QMP action in his 2002 and 2006 applications to the Army Board of Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), the matter was not properly subject to judicial review. In regards to appellant's second contention pertaining to the termination of his Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) process, the court reversed the decision of the district court and instructed the trial court to remand the case for further proceedings. View "Coburn v. McHugh" on Justia Law

The Government appealed from the district court's judgment requiring the Government to disclose, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, information redacted from two memoranda prepared by the OLC. The Government contended that the redactions were justified under FOIA because the information pertained to a highly classified, active intelligence method. The court concluded that the Government could withhold this information under FOIA Exemption 1. Plaintiffs challenged the judgment insofar as it sustained the Government's withholding of certain records relating to the use of waterboarding and a photograph of a high-value detainee in custody. The court agreed with the district court that the materials at issue were exempt from disclosure. The district court erred, however, in requiring the Government to disclose the classified information redacted from the two memoranda. View "American Civil Liberties Union v. Dept. of Justice" on Justia Law

Duchesneau served on active duty in the Army, July 1996 to January 1999. In 2000, a VA Regional Office granted service connection for her right shoulder bursitis with a 10 percent disability rating. In 2003 she sought an increased disability rating, but the RO denied her claim. The Board affirmed. The veterans' court rejected her claim for two separate disability ratings under a single diagnostic code, set aside the Board's decision as to a single appropriate disability rating under DC 5201 and remanded to the Board to clarify the precise extent of her right shoulder limitation. The Federal Circuit rejected an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, stating that the veterans' court decision was not a final judgment. View "Duchesneau v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Wife serves in the U.S. Air Force and executed a military power of attorney designating husband as her attorney-in-fact during her deployment overseas. Husband presented a photocopy of this instrument to the Fayette County Clerk to recording an original deed and mortgage in the real property index records. The clerk’s office rejected the copy as inauthentic and refused to record the documents. The district court dismissed their suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, which claimed that rejection of the power of attorney violated 10 U.S.C. 1044b. That statute sets the minimal requirements for executing a military power of attorney and prohibits states from imposing additional requirements. During the pendency of appeal, the couple submitted an original military power of attorney and the documents were recorded. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The unnotarized copy of the power of attorney lacked an essential element of a military power of attorney and did not qualify for 1044b(a) protections. View "Bartholomew v. Blevins" on Justia Law

Morris served on active duty for two months in 1964. His entrance examination and examination upon separation revealed no psychiatric abnormality. In 1966 Morris sought disability compensation for a psychiatric disorder, claiming that in basic training, he had suffered abuse from his sergeant, which caused him to experience nervous breakdown. The VA Regional Office denied the claim. In 1986, the RO concluded that additional evidence did not constitute new and material evidence. Following another denial, Morris presented evidence that he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and a VA physician's opinion that it had its onset during service. The Board denied the claim. On remand in 1992, the Board concluded that evidence supported the claim but that its 1988 decision was final. In 1993, the RO awarded service connection for schizophrenia effective from 1987. In 1996, the Board denied a claim that the award should be retroactive to 1966. The Veterans Court rejected an argument that the 1988 Board failed to apply correctly 38 U.S.C. 105(a), 1110, and 1111, noting no evidence that the Board incorrectly considered his condition a personality disorder. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Under 38 C.F.R. 3.303(c), personality disorders are not diseases or injuries within the meaning of 1110 and are not compensable. View "Morris v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

After the September 11, 2011 attacks, the government detained plaintiff, an American citizen, as an enemy combatant. Plaintiff alleged that he was held incommunicado in military detention, subjected to coercive interrogation techniques and detained under harsh conditions of confinement, all in violation of his constitutional and statutory rights. Plaintiff and his mother sued John Yoo, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) from 2001 to 2003, alleging that they suffered from plaintiff's unlawful detention. The court held that, under recent Supreme Court law, Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, the court was compelled to conclude that, regardless of the legality of plaintiff's detention and the wisdom of Yoo's judgments, at the time he acted the law was not "sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he [wa]s doing violated[d]" plaintiff's rights. Therefore, the court held that Yoo must be granted qualified immunity and accordingly reversed the decision of the district court. View "Padilla, et al. v. Yoo" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Naval Criminal Investigative Service engineer since 1984, agreed to a transfer in 2002. The transfer was delayed because of her mother’s poor health. Shortly before the transfer was to occur, she voluntarily responded to a summons to act as a grand juror. The Navy paid her while she served as a grand juror (5 U.S.C. 6322(a)), but ordered her to report to Washington year later and directed her not to seek or accept extension of her grand jury duties. She nonetheless was sworn in for a second term. The Navy declared her to be AWOL, the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissed an appeal, and she was terminated from her employment. The claims court granted summary judgment in favor of the government on pre-removal back pay claim and dismissed, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, her post- removal claims for back pay, reinstatement, and other forms of compensation. The Federal Circuit reversed in part, holding that the claims court erred in interpreting 5 U.S.C. 6322(a), which entitles a grand juror to court leave when "summoned," regardless of whether the grand juror volunteered to be summoned. View "Hall v. United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner served in the Army for about 30 months, 1981-1983 and suffered injury to her knees and wrist. The VA regional office assigned a 10 percent rating to her left wrist with an effective date of 1986. In 1987, her right arm was injured as a result of medical care she received from the VA. In 1990, her injury to right knee and shoulder were each rated at 20 percent and her left knee at 30 percent. In 1996, she was unable to continue working as a bookkeeper and brought a claim for total disability based on individual unemployability. The regional office rated her service-connected disabilities at 70 percent, but denied a total rating based on unemployability under 38 C.F.R. 4.16(a). The regional office and Board of Veterans’ Appeals rejected her 2004 application for review. The Secretary conceded that the regional office committed error by incorrectly computing petitioner’s rating. The Veterans Court found no “clear and unmistakeable error” and that the error was harmless because the RO had made an unemployability determination that satisfied the requirements for a 4.16(a) analysis. The Federal Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because there was no issue of the interpretation of 4.16(a)View "Githens-Bellas v. Shinseki" on Justia Law