Coburn v. McHugh
400 U.S. App. D.C. 443
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- Coburn, after ~18 years in the Army, was involuntarily separated under the QMP on Oct 30, 2002 for an unfavorable NCOER and an Article 15 punishment.
- An MEB was initiated in 2002 to assess Coburn’s medical retention status; the MEB process was reportedly terminated the same day Coburn was discharged.
- Coburn challenged the termination of the MEB and the ABCMR denied his requests in 2003 and 2007; Coburn did not explicitly challenge the QMP action in 2002 or 2006 ABCMR proceedings.
- The Department Court granted the Secretary’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment; Coburn appealed, contending QMP separation was unlawful and MEB termination was improper.
- The DC Circuit held that Coburn’s QMP claim was waived for review, but reversed and remanded the MEB issue to require a reasoned decision on initiation/referral and related questions.
- On remand, the ABCMR must address, at a minimum, the distinctness of MEB initiation vs referral, whether Coburn was referred to a MEB, and the authority/termination actions of non-MEB physicians.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Coburn’s QMP separation was properly reviewable. | Coburn asserted improper QMP termination. | The ABCMR decisions were not challenged on QMP grounds in 2002/2006 proceedings. | QMP claim waived; review denied. |
| Whether Coburn was referred to a MEB and whether MEB termination was lawful. | Coburn was referred to a MEB and termination was improper. | MEB termination was supported by medical findings and authority. | MEB termination lacked coherent authority; remand required for reasoned decisionmaking. |
| Whether the ABCMR provided a sufficient reasoned decision on the MEB issue. | ABCMR’s MEB reasoning was incoherent and noncompliant with APA standards. | ABCMR decisions were adequate under legal standards. | ABCMR decisions vacated for want of reasoned decisionmaking; remand ordered. |
| What questions must ABCMR address on remand regarding MEB processing. | Clear criteria exist for review of initiation vs referral and termination. | Remand should clarify standard procedures as applied to Coburn. | ABCMR must resolve initiation vs referral, possible referral, and authority to terminate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kreis v. Sec'y of the Air Force, 866 F.2d 1508 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (arbitrary and capricious review of military corrections decisions)
- Dickson v. Sec'y of Def., 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (APA review of ABCMR decisions)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (Supreme Court 1983) (standard of review for agency actions; reasoned decisionmaking)
- Unemployment Comp. Comm'n of Alaska v. Aragon, 329 U.S. 143 (Supreme Court 1946) (waiver of issues not raised before agency)
- L.A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 344 U.S. 33 (Supreme Court 1952) (hard fairness rule and issue waiver)