Keith A. Houghtling v. United States
114 Fed. Cl. 149
| Fed. Cl. | 2013Background
- Houghtling, an Army medic, tested positive for benzodiazepine (Valium) in Feb 2006 and received non‑judicial punishment (Article 15) in June 2006 (demotion, forfeiture, extra duties). He later tested positive for cocaine in Sept 2006 and was processed for administrative separation.
- Captain Sundquist (unit physician) emailed that he could not recall prescribing Valium to Houghtling; other unit members gave sworn statements suggesting purchases of Valium/steroids in Iraq and observations of impairment, but none saw Houghtling ingest Valium.
- A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) later diagnosed Houghtling with PTSD and referred him to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), but he was administratively separated in Apr 2007 under Army Reg. 635‑200, ch. 14‑12c (commission of a serious offense), characterized as General (under honorable conditions).
- Houghtling applied to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) seeking expungement of the Article 15, restoration of rank, honorable discharge, and referral to a PEB; ABCMR denied relief in Feb 2011, finding sufficient evidence to uphold the Article 15 and the separation.
- Houghtling sued in the Court of Federal Claims seeking back pay, disability/retirement pay, correction of records, and an upgrade of discharge; government moved to dismiss or for judgment on the administrative record.
- The Court held the claims justiciable for review of whether Army procedures (specifically Army Reg. 27‑10 ¶ 3‑18(l) requiring commander be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt) were followed, but affirmed the ABCMR under the APA standard (not arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to law).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court may review claims challenging an Article 15‑based separation and seek back pay/benefits | Houghtling contends the Article 15 punishment violated Army Reg. 27‑10 ¶ 3‑18(l) (commander must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt), so the ABCMR erred; relief (back pay, disability, record correction) is available | Government contends this is a merits challenge to military discipline beyond court competence; only procedural defects are reviewable | Court: Justiciable — may review whether military followed its own regulation; dismissed only Count IV (jurisdictional) but retained Counts I–III for record review |
| Whether ABCMR acted arbitrarily or without substantial evidence in upholding Article 15 | Houghtling argues evidence was insufficient: ambiguous physician statements, no direct proof he lacked a prescription, and witnesses did not see ingestion | Government points to physician emails, unit statements about purchases/impairment, and other corroborating evidence supporting the commander’s finding | Court: ABCMR decision is supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious; judgment for defendant |
| Whether administrative separation was improper because based on invalid Article 15 | Houghtling says an invalid Article 15 tainted separation and denied PEB referral (and disability benefits) | Government says separation was supported by record (Valium use + later cocaine use + MEB findings) and procedural requirements were followed | Court: Separation proper; ABCMR permissibly concluded medical condition was not a direct/substantial cause of misconduct and discharged under Chapter 14‑12c |
| Whether court can order correction of military records collateral to monetary relief | Houghtling seeks correction of DA Form 2627, rank restoration, and PEB referral | Government disputes merits but does not challenge court’s statutory authority to correct records incident to monetary relief | Court: May review and correct records only if monetary relief is warranted; here, no relief granted because ABCMR decision upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Metz v. United States, 466 F.3d 991 (Fed. Cir.) (Court of Federal Claims reviews ABCMR decisions under APA standards)
- Voge v. United States, 844 F.2d 776 (Fed. Cir.) (limits judicial review of military personnel decisions absent manageable standards)
- Fisher v. United States, 420 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir.) (courts may review whether military followed its own regulations in nonjudicial punishment contexts)
- Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153 (Fed. Cir.) (substantial‑evidence standard; courts will not reweigh evidence)
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir.) (factual disputes resolved by administrative record)