Joseph Hoffler v. James Mattis
677 F. App'x 119
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Joseph W. Hoffler, a retired USAF Lieutenant Colonel, challenged the AFBCMR’s denial of his application to correct military records.
- Hoffler sought (1) retroactive promotion to colonel from the 1984 promotion board, (2) removal of a letter of reprimand (LOR) based on alleged flaws identified by an EOT inquiry, and (3) reinstatement of a Meritorious Service Medal revoked in 1985.
- The district court dismissed in part and granted summary judgment to the defendants; Hoffler appealed.
- The appeal raises administrative-review questions under the Administrative Procedure Act about whether the AFBCMR acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to law.
- The court reviewed summary judgment de novo and applied the narrow standard of review for military promotion decisions and AFBCMR determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Promotion to colonel (1984 board) | Hoffler argued the Board erred in not correcting records to show promotion | Board never convened an SSB; no request for SSB was made | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (no SSB issue presented) |
| Removal of LOR | Hoffler argued the EOT inquiry showed investigation was flawed and LOR should be removed | Board considered EOT findings and Hoffler admitted the underlying misconduct | Affirmed — Board reasonably refused to remove LOR |
| Reinstatement of Meritorious Service Medal | Hoffler asserted revocation was improper based on various allegations | Defendants maintained revocation was a discretionary decision supported by record | Affirmed — Hoffler provided only speculation, not evidence to overturn revocation |
| Standard of review / summary judgment | Hoffler sought de novo relief from Board action | Defendants urged deferential administrative review and summary judgment | Affirmed in part; summary judgment appropriate where no material fact dispute |
Key Cases Cited
- Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296 (1983) (AFBCMR decisions are final agency actions subject to APA review)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard; genuine dispute of material fact)
- Randall v. United States, 95 F.3d 339 (4th Cir. 1996) (standard for reviewing grants of summary judgment and AFBCMR review)
- Mickens v. United States, 760 F.2d 539 (4th Cir. 1985) (review limits for military records corrections)
- Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal. v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177 (4th Cir. 2009) (arbitrary-and-capricious standard requires consideration of relevant factors)