Brown v. United States
133 Fed. Cl. 186
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- Jeffrey Brown served on active duty in the Army from 1984 to 2000; during service he had multiple inguinal hernia repairs, intermittent seizures (first in 1996), and shoulder dislocations, and at times failed to meet height/weight standards.
- Brown was honorably discharged when his enlistment expired in August 2000 during involuntary separation processing for weight standards; he was not referred to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) or Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) at that time.
- After service Brown sought correction of his records and an MEB referral from the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), asserting seizure disorder (and later sleep apnea, anxiety, depression, PTSD) related to his separation.
- ABCMR denied Brown’s initial and reconsideration petitions concluding the record did not show an unfitting condition, no neurologist had referred him to an MEB, and he could be maintained seizure-free on medication; the board relied on applicable statutes and Army regulations (with a later harmless reliance on a post-dating regulation version).
- Brown sued in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act seeking disability compensation under 10 U.S.C. §§ 1201 and 1203; both parties moved for judgment on the administrative record.
- The Court granted the government’s motion, holding ABCMR’s decisions were supported by substantial evidence, in accordance with law, and that Brown waived claims based on shoulder and hernia conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ABCMR erred by denying correction/referral to MEB for seizure disorder | Brown: was entitled to MEB/benefits because he had recurrent seizures during final service years and needed MEB review | Gov: record shows neurologist treated seizures with meds, no neurologist referral to MEB, and seizures were controllable on nontoxic meds | Held: ABCMR acted reasonably; no referral required because neurologist opted medical therapy and seizures were controlled on medication |
| Whether recurrence-after-treatment rule required MEB referral (6‑month recurrence) | Brown: seizures recurred beyond six months after treatment so regulation mandated MEB referral | Gov: record shows no documented seizures after correct dosage was taken; recurrence rule not triggered | Held: No documented post-treatment recurrence; rule not triggered, so no MEB referral required |
| Whether ABCMR’s use of a 2016 version of AR 40‑501 (not in effect at separation) was reversible error | Brown: ABCMR relied on wrong/regulation version, prejudicing outcome | Gov: reliance was harmless because controlling provisions were substantively the same and outcome unchanged | Held: Error was harmless; outcome would be same under 2000-era regulation |
| Whether shoulder and hernia claims were properly before the court | Brown: contends ABCMR failed to address shoulder/hernia as grounds for unfitness | Gov: Brown did not raise those conditions as grounds before ABCMR; thus waived | Held: Court enforces waiver doctrine; shoulder and hernia claims waived because not presented to ABCMR |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. United States, 417 F.3d 1218 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (identifies 10 U.S.C. § 1201 as money‑mandating)
- Barnick v. United States, 591 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (standard for review of military corrections board decisions)
- Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (court’s limited scope when reviewing correction board decisions)
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (RCFC 52.1 standards for judgment on administrative record)
- Wall v. United States, 582 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (discusses disability retirement/PEB process)