Randolph v. United States, 129 Fed. Cl. 301

Background

Jerome Randolph, a former Navy officer, pled guilty at general court-martial in 2009 to making a false official statement (Art. 107) and conduct unbecoming (Art. 133); an Article 120 (rape) charge was dropped. He received 24 months confinement and a dishonorable discharge.
Randolph petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) to expunge the court-martial, upgrade his discharge to honorable, and obtain back pay/promotions; BCNR denied relief in Jan. 2013 after reviewing the record, guilty pleas, and mitigating evidence.
Randolph sought reconsideration multiple times; BCNR again denied relief and administratively closed the matter, advising judicial appeal as the next step.
Randolph filed suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims seeking (1) upgraded discharge and back pay, (2) expungement of the court-martial record, and (3) defamation damages.
The Government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, for judgment on the administrative record. The Court denied dismissal of the discharge/back-pay claim but granted judgment on the administrative record in favor of the Government; it dismissed the expungement and defamation claims for lack of jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court has jurisdiction to award back pay and upgrade discharge	Randolph contends his dishonorable discharge was improper (based on dropped rape charge) and seeks back pay/promotions under the Military Pay Act	Government concedes Tucker Act jurisdiction may exist if a money-mandating source (37 U.S.C. § 204) supports the claim but argues BCNR decision was reasonable	Court: Jurisdiction exists under the Tucker Act/Military Pay Act; but judgment for Government on the administrative record — BCNR decision supported by substantial evidence (denied upgrade/back pay)
Whether the Court can expunge a court-martial conviction	Randolph argues dismissal of Article 120 shows the underlying accusations were false and the conviction/record should be expunged	Government argues court-martial convictions are reviewable only by military appellate courts; Claims Court lacks jurisdiction absent a collateral, money-mandating claim or allegation of fundamental unfairness	Court: Dismissed claim for expungement for lack of jurisdiction; no due-process/fundamental fairness allegations pleaded
Whether the Court can hear a defamation (tort) claim against the United States	Randolph alleges Government defamed him by accusing him of a crime	Government argues Claims Court lacks tort jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)); FTCA tort claims belong in district court	Court: Dismissed defamation claim for lack of jurisdiction (improper forum)
Standard and scope of review for BCNR decision	Randolph asserts BCNR erred and its denial was arbitrary/capricious	Government asserts BCNR reasonably weighed guilty pleas and evidence; its decision must stand unless arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence	Court: Applied administrative-record review; BCNR decision was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence (judgment for Government)

Key Cases Cited

Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir.) (Tucker Act jurisdiction principles)
Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir.) (money-mandating Military Pay Act claims support discharge-upgrade jurisdiction)
Tippett v. United States, 185 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir.) (Military Pay Act as basis for claims for pay due absent proper separation)
Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804 (Ct. Cl.) (predecessor authority on pay remedies and record corrections)
Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir.) (standard for judgment on the administrative record)
Wronke v. Marsh, 787 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir.) (board decisions reviewed for substantial evidence/reasonableness)
Shearin v. United States, 992 F.2d 1195 (Fed. Cir.) (Claims Court lacks jurisdiction over tort claims such as defamation)