MOSQUEDA v. United States, 1:14-cv-00958

Mosqueda served in the Navy from March 3, 1992 to October 15, 2008 and faced administrative separation after allegations of child sexual molestation and other sexual misconduct.
The Administrative Separation Processing Notice charged erroneous enlistment and "commission of a serious offense" (MILPERSMAN provisions); the notice gave no detailed factual allegations.
The administrative board found Mosqueda committed a serious offense (noting child molestation and supervisory inaction) and recommended an other-than-honorable discharge; the commanding officer downgraded that to a general discharge based on a violation of Instruction 5370.1 (failure to report fraternization).
Mosqueda petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), which denied relief; he then sued in the Court of Federal Claims seeking to set aside the discharge and obtain relief including reinstatement/back pay, record correction, medical expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
The court reviewed whether the Navy’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to law and found no evidence that Mosqueda failed to report fraternization — the sole basis the Navy used to effect the discharge.
The court granted Mosqueda judgment on the administrative record, set aside the discharge, denied the medical expenses claim as waived for failure to raise it before the BCNR, and remanded to the BCNR to calculate back pay and correct records; motions by the government were denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether discharge was supported by substantial evidence	Mosqueda argued the Navy lacked evidence he failed to report fraternization and that the discharge was unsupported	Government relied on board and commanding officer findings that misconduct/fraternization justified separation	Court: discharge unsupported — no evidence that Mosqueda acted or failed to act with respect to fraternization; discharge set aside
Appropriate remedy — reinstatement or back pay	Mosqueda sought reinstatement, restoration, or placement on retired list and back pay	Government argued court cannot order reenlistment/placement beyond authority	Court: cannot order reenlistment; remanded to BCNR to calculate back pay to end of enlistment term and determine retirement/reserve entitlement if applicable
Recovery of post-discharge medical expenses	Mosqueda sought medical expenses incurred after discharge	Government argued claim was waived because not presented to BCNR	Court: claim waived and denied (not presented to BCNR)
Entitlement to attorneys’ fees and timing	Mosqueda sought fees and costs	Government noted procedural requirements for EAJA motions	Court: did not resolve merits of EAJA claim; directed adherence to RCFC timing rules for filing fee motions

Cronin v. United States, 765 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (standard of review for military separation decisions)
Melendez-Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (review limited to arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to law)
Verbeck v. United States, 118 Fed. Cl. 420 (Fed. Cl. 2014) (court must not reweigh evidence; substantial evidence standard)
Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (substantial-evidence review principles)
Dodson v. United States, 988 F.2d 1199 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (court lacks authority to order reenlistment; remedy limited to back pay to end of enlistment)
Thomas v. United States, 42 Fed. Cl. 449 (Ct. Cl. 1998) (recovery limited to back pay; administrative waiver principles)
Doyle v. United States, 220 Ct. Cl. 285 (Ct. Cl. 1979) (issues not raised before administrative board are waived)