Strand v. United States
706 F. App'x 996
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Walter Strand served ~19½ years in the Navy with multiple commendations and extensive combat deployments. After a 2008 domestic shooting incident he was convicted in civil court and sentenced to six years; the Navy administratively separated him in June 2009.
- While in civil confinement but before separation, Strand continued receiving pay because he had accrued leave and was informed by his command he was entitled to pay. The Navy later sought recovery of $74,486.33 it had paid him during confinement.
- Strand petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) for six months’ retirement credit to reach 20 years; the BCNR recommended credit and upgrading his discharge to honorable retirement.
- The Secretary (via delegated Assistant General Counsel) rejected the BCNR recommendation, citing Strand’s alleged long-standing family-advocacy/domestic-violence history, the seriousness of his conviction, Navy core values, and Navy practice. The Assistant GC’s denial was a two-paragraph decision.
- Strand sued in the Court of Federal Claims; the trial court reversed the Secretary (finding the decision arbitrary and capricious) and granted the Government’s counterclaim to recover the pay. Both parties appealed.
- The Federal Circuit held the Secretary’s denial was unsupported by substantial evidence and remanded to the Secretary for further proceedings; it affirmed the Government’s counterclaim as timely and permissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Secretary's denial of BCNR relief was supported by substantial evidence / arbitrary and capricious | Strand: Secretary relied on unsupportable factual finding (long‑standing FAP/domestic violence) and thus denial was arbitrary and capricious | Government: Secretary’s decision rests on multiple policy and factual bases (domestic history, seriousness of offense, core values, practice) and should be upheld | Court: Reversed Secretary — one key factual basis (long‑standing FAP history) lacked record support; remand to Secretary for further proceedings |
| Whether remand to agency is appropriate vs. court deciding merits | Strand: favored judicial reversal vindicating BCNR decision | Government: urged remand for further administrative consideration | Court: Remand required; agency should re-evaluate in light of findings that lack support (no special circumstances to decide de novo) |
| Timeliness of Government’s counterclaim under 28 U.S.C. § 2415 / § 2501 | Strand: counterclaim untimely; CFC statute of limitations or court rules bar it | Government: Counterclaim arises from same transaction as Strand’s claim and is timely under § 2415(f); § 2501 doesn’t control government claims here | Court: Affirmed — counterclaim timely under § 2415(f); § 2501 inapplicable to government-initiated claims |
| Trial court’s discretion to accept late-filed counterclaim (court rules) | Strand: Counterclaim was filed after scheduling deadline and should be struck | Government: Late filing but no prejudice to Strand; court may permit it | Court: No abuse of discretion allowing the counterclaim; Strand had full opportunity to oppose |
Key Cases Cited
- Roth v. United States, 378 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir.) (standard of appellate review for judgment on administrative record)
- Walls v. United States, 582 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir.) (court may set aside agency action that is arbitrary or unsupported by substantial evidence)
- Snyder v. Dep’t of Navy, 854 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir.) (definition of substantial evidence in military‑record review)
- INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (U.S.) (courts should ordinarily remand to agencies for further explanation)
- SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (U.S.) (courts cannot substitute their judgment for an agency’s)
- Gonzalez v. Thomas, 547 U.S. 183 (U.S.) (remand to agency is proper absent rare circumstances)
- Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir.) (counterclaim arises out of same transaction or occurrence)
- Estes Exp. Lines v. United States, 739 F.3d 689 (Fed. Cir.) (de novo review of court’s jurisdiction)
- Keranos, LLC v. Silicon Storage Tech., Inc., 797 F.3d 1025 (Fed. Cir.) (abuse of discretion standard for trial court’s procedural rulings)