Crumley v. United States
133 Fed. Cl. 607
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- Matthew Crumley, USAF Major, served 2000–2012 and was separated in a 2011 Reduction-in-Force (RIF) with an honorable discharge effective March 1, 2012.
- In November 2010 Crumley injured himself while serving as an Honor Guard and shortly thereafter sent emails notifying senior USAF officials; he also received a Letter of Admonishment (LOA) for allegedly disrespectful conduct in late 2010.
- The LOA led to an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) and a 2011 Education/Training report; Crumley submitted responses and admitted some responsibility for his conduct in a subsequent reply.
- A RIF board non‑selected Crumley for retention; Crumley appealed to the AFBCMR and then to the Undersecretary of Defense and requested a special board, all of which denied relief up through a December 2016 special board decision.
- Crumley sued in the Court of Federal Claims asserting procedural defects in issuance of the LOA/UIF/2011 Report, claiming wrongful separation and seeking back pay and record correction.
- The government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and alternatively for judgment on the administrative record; the court held oral argument and considered whether procedural defects were justiciable and material.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court jurisdiction to review pay/record claims | Crumley sought declaratory relief, APA relief, MWPA relief and pay; argues AFBCMR decision was unlawful | Government contends many claims nonjusticiable but acknowledges Military Pay Act money‑mandates jurisdiction limited to pay claims | Court: Jurisdiction exists under Tucker Act/Military Pay Act for pay and attendant record relief |
| Justiciability of military personnel decisions | Challenges procedural defects in LOA/UIF/2011 Report and says they tainted RIF/AFBCMR decisions | Government: merits of staffing decisions are nonjudicial; only procedural claims may be reviewed and alleged defects are immaterial | Court: Procedural review is allowed but Crumley’s alleged defects were immaterial; AFBCMR decision not arbitrary or capricious |
| Adequacy of procedures for LOA/UIF (e.g., specificity, signatures, acknowledgment) | LOA lacked required specifics and signatures; commander failed to acknowledge rebuttal before UIF establishment | Government: LOA provided sufficient detail; Crumley had notice, multiple chances to respond and even admitted misconduct; signature omissions harmless | Held: Minor procedural errors were not material; Crumley had notice and opportunity to respond, so records properly considered by RIF |
| Substantial evidence supporting AFBCMR special board decision | Crumley contends the documentation was unsubstantiated and motivated by bad faith, so board’s decision unsupported | Government contends record shows admissions and corroboration (e.g., shouting audible elsewhere), supporting the board | Held: AFBCMR special board decision supported by substantial evidence; not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (Tucker Act does not create substantive money‑mandating rights)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (plaintiff bears burden to establish jurisdiction)
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (separate source of law required for Tucker Act money claim)
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (standards for judgment on the administrative record)
- Walls v. United States, 582 F.3d 1358 (review of military correction board decisions on the administrative record)
- Chambers v. United States, 417 F.3d 1218 (corrections board decisions disturbed only if arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, or unsupported by substantial evidence)
- Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153 (courts should not substitute their judgment for military personnel decisions)
- Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295 (Military Pay Act is money‑mandating and gives Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction)
- Allphin v. United States, 758 F.3d 1336 (procedural challenges to military decisions can be justiciable)
- Adkins v. United States, 68 F.3d 1317 (distinguishing merits vs procedural review of military decisions)
- Armstrong v. United States, 205 Ct. Cl. 754 (presumption of regularity for official military acts)