Alford v. United States
132 Fed. Cl. 334
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- Carlos A. Alford, a former Marine, seeks disability retirement benefits based on alleged service-connected PTSD and schizoaffective disorder; he has prior other-than-honorable and dishonorable discharges from the 1980s.
- Alford repeatedly petitioned the Naval Discharge Review Board and the Board for Correction of Naval Records; prior courts remanded or dismissed various claims on procedural grounds.
- A 2014 district-court remand required the Correction Board to consider all of Alford’s claims, including disability retirement; the Correction Board’s 2014 decision did not address the disability claim, and this Court remanded in Alford X for the Board to decide that claim.
- On remand the Correction Board relied on an advisory opinion that did not include an opinion from a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist; Congress in 2014 enacted 10 U.S.C. § 1552(g) requiring such an opinion in certain mental-health cases.
- The government moved for a voluntary remand so the Board can obtain an advisory opinion that includes a clinical psychologist/psychiatrist opinion; the Court granted the remand and denied Alford’s motion for judgment on the administrative record as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Correction Board’s advisory opinion satisfied 10 U.S.C. § 1552(g) requirements for mental-health claims | Alford contends his disability claim (PTSD, schizoaffective disorder) should be considered on the merits; he seeks disability retirement | Government seeks remand so the Board can obtain an advisory opinion including a clinical psychologist/psychiatrist per § 1552(g); notes Alford’s in-service diagnoses may not “squarely” trigger the statute but requests remand nonetheless | The Court granted the government’s voluntary remand request and ordered the Board to obtain an advisory opinion that includes a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist and to reconsider the disability claim |
| Whether the Court should proceed to judgment on the administrative record now | Alford moved for judgment on the record seeking disability retirement and discharge upgrade | Government opposed final disposition and asked for remand to allow compliance with § 1552(g) and further administrative consideration | The Court denied Alford’s motion as moot because it remanded the matter to the Board for further consideration |
| Appropriate remedy when the administrative record lacks required specialist opinion | Alford seeks immediate relief based on existing record | Government requests remand rather than confessing error; cites ability to seek remand for further consideration | The Court followed precedent favoring remand for additional investigation/explanation and remanded to the Board for up to six months |
| Scope and duration of remand and reporting | Alford implicitly wants full resolution including benefits and discharge upgrade | Government agreed to a limited remand to obtain the specialist opinion and reconsider the claim | The Court stayed the litigation, remanded the disability claim to the Board for up to six months, ordered the Board to obtain the required clinical opinion, allowed Alford to submit additional evidence, and required government status reports every 90 days |
Key Cases Cited
- SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1022 (Fed. Cir.) (approving voluntary remand to agency for further consideration)
- Walls v. United States, 582 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir.) (remand appropriate where administrative record is inadequate and court cannot conduct de novo review)
- Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (U.S.) (courts should remand to agencies for additional investigation or explanation when record is inadequate)
- Murthy v. Vilsack, 609 F.3d 460 (D.C. Cir.) (dismissal for failure to exhaust does not preclude refiling after exhaustion)
- Chambers v. United States, 417 F.3d 1218 (Fed. Cir.) (statutory prerequisites for Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over military disability pay claims)