Parks v. United States
127 Fed. Cl. 677
Fed. Cl.2016Background
- Parks enlisted in the Navy in 2008 and was subject to a military protective order (MPO) after an April 2011 arrest for domestic battery; the MPO prohibited contact with his wife.
- Parks admitted in a voluntary statement to violating the MPO on multiple occasions in May 2011; his command imposed non-judicial punishment, reduced his rank, and initiated administrative separation for "commission of a serious offense."
- The Naval administrative Separation Notice referenced the MPO and a Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office report; Parks argues that referenced civilian charges were later dismissed (nolle prosequi).
- Parks sought review by the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) and the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR); both boards upheld the separation as based on willfully disobeying the MPO (UCMJ Art. 90), not on the dismissed civilian assault charge.
- Parks sued in the Court of Federal Claims seeking recharacterization to honorable, monetary damages for lost pay, expungement of non-judicial punishment, and other relief, arguing wrongful discharge, defective notice, violation of parental rights, and inconsistent misconduct characterization.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discharge was improper because civilian assault charge was dismissed | Parks: Discharge was effectively for the dropped domestic violence charge and thus improper | U.S.: Discharge was for willful disobedience of MPO (UCMJ Art. 90) based on Parks's own admissions | Court: Discharge was for violation of MPO (Art. 90); boards and separation supported by record; claim fails |
| Whether notice of separation was deficient | Parks: Notice referenced a sheriff’s report not in record and failed to cite UCMJ provision, so notice inadequate | U.S.: Notice referenced MPO and implementing regulation; Parks knew basis (he admitted it and identified Art. 90 in his GCMCA letter) | Court: Notice conformed to DoD requirements; any error harmless; claim fails |
| Whether no-contact order violated Parks's parental rights regarding unborn child | Parks: MPO and no-contact order infringed parental rights | U.S.: Issue not raised to corrections boards; separation based on MPO violation | Court: Argument waived for failing to raise before NDRB/BCNR; not considered |
| Whether characterization of misconduct as both "major" and "minor" was arbitrary | Parks: Notice/processing arbitrarily labeled misconduct inconsistent ways | U.S.: Procedural processing and characterization were proper and within guidelines | Court: Argument waived for not raising before boards; boards' decisions upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (standard for judgment on the administrative record)
- Porter v. United States, 163 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (standards for overturning military corrections board decisions)
- Wagner v. United States, 365 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (harmless procedural error doctrine)
- Milas v. United States, 42 Fed. Cl. 704 (1999) (technical procedural error insufficient absent substantial prejudice)
- Metz v. United States, 466 F.3d 991 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (issues not raised before correction board are waived)
- Doyle v. United States, 599 F.2d 984 (Ct. Cl. 1979) (administrative exhaustion requirement; issues not raised before agency are barred)