Antonellis v. United States
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14501
Fed. Cir.2013Background
- Antonellis is a Navy Reserve officer with a long reserve career, including service in both Paid Selected Reserve and Unpaid Individual Ready Reserve.
- From 2009 to 2011 he applied 69 times for Selected Reserve pay billets but was never assigned to one and instead served in a Volunteer Training Unit without pay.
- He filed suit in the Claims Court seeking back pay under 37 U.S.C. § 206(a) alleging the APPLY Board failed to assign him to a pay billet.
- The Claims Court dismissed the complaint as nonjusticiable, treating the guidance letter as nonbinding and lacking judicially manageable standards.
- The court and now the Federal Circuit discuss whether procedural standards exist to support a money remedy for such procedural failures.
- Antonellis appeals, arguing the Commander’s guidance letter creates enforceable procedures that the APPLY Board violated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction and money-mandating relief | MP Act creates money relief for denied pay. | Not litigated on appeal; jurisdiction questioned but not pressed. | Court has Tucker Act jurisdiction and MP Act money relief may exist in some procedural contexts. |
| Existence of judicially manageable standards | Commander’s guidance letter provides concrete criteria and standards. | Letter merely guides discretion; provides no measurable standards. | The standards are not sufficiently judicially manageable to support relief; standards are insufficient. |
| Back pay availability for procedural violations | Procedural violations can yield back pay when statutory/regulatory procedures are not followed. | Procedural review alone cannot guarantee money; only non-monetary relief or no remedy. | Back pay is not categorically unavailable, but Antonellis failed to allege a justiciable procedural violation with measurable standards; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dysart v. United States, 369 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (military pay available when constitutional/statutory/regulatory denial occurred)
- Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804 (Ct. Cl. 1979) (back pay exceptions and remedies in promotions context)
- Adkins v. United States, 68 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (procedural challenges may be justiciable if required procedures are violated)
- Sargisson v. United States, 913 F.2d 918 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (procedural standards must exist for judicial review; no tests/standards otherwise)
- Palmer v. United States, 168 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (back pay not available for duties not performed; context distinguishing cases)
- King v. United States, 50 Fed. Cl. 701 (2001) (policy handbook not binding; no judicially enforceable standards)
- Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1973) (nonjusticiable where no judicially discoverable standards exist)