THOMAS v. United States
1:22-cv-00590
| Fed. Cl. | Feb 13, 2025Background
- Ruliere Thomas served on active duty in the U.S. Army, Air Force Reserve, and Air Force Active Guard Reserve for nearly 18 years, including two combat deployments to Iraq.
- Thomas began to show symptoms consistent with PTSD after his deployments but did not receive an official diagnosis until after his separation from service.
- In 2016, his request to be retained on active duty was denied by the AGR Review Board, resulting in his involuntary separation just short of being eligible for retirement benefits ("sanctuary").
- Thomas later sought to have his records corrected to reflect a medical retirement based on PTSD but was denied by the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).
- The court remanded the case for further consideration; after remand, the AFBCMR again denied relief, leading to cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record in the Court of Federal Claims.
- Key legal questions included whether the Board properly applied the required standard of "liberal consideration" to PTSD-related claims, whether the denial of retention was justiciable, and whether the Air Force violated its procedures in handling Thomas's appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of "liberal consideration" to PTSD claim | Board failed to apply/doctrinally explain liberal consideration as required by law and guidance | Board properly evaluated all relevant evidence and applied standards as required | Board's decision was arbitrary, capricious, and not supported by substantial evidence; remand for proper application required |
| Thomas's fitness for duty at separation | PTSD rendered him unfit for continued service | No substantial evidence he was unfit; no duty limitations or restrictions documented | Board's findings not supported by substantial evidence; must reconsider fitness and record evidence |
| Substantive review of non-retention decision | Review Board failed to apply "whole person" concept and misapplied discretion | Board's retention decisions are nonjusticiable as they are based on service needs | Issue not justiciable; dismissal of challenge to substance of non-retention decision |
| Cancellation of Thomas's AGR appeal | Air Force violated its regulations by cancelling his appeal without decision | Cancellation was proper due to plaintiff's actions and was regular agency procedure | Air Force violated its own regulations; Board's contrary finding arbitrary and capricious; remedy ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Walls v. United States, 582 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (clarifies standard of review for military correction board decisions)
- Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (judicial review limited to arbitrary/capricious/unsupported decisions)
- Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296 (1983) (judicial review of correction board decisions)
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (procedures for judgment on administrative record)
- Murphy v. United States, 993 F.2d 871 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (justiciability of military personnel decisions)
- Adkins v. United States, 68 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (procedural challenges to military decisions are justiciable)
- Wagner v. United States, 365 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (military bound by its own procedural regulations)