Trent Coburn v. Patrick J. Murphy
424 U.S. App. D.C. 56
D.C. Cir.2016Background
- In 2000 Coburn tested positive for marijuana, faced administrative separation, and sought an MEB in 2002 for ongoing back pain before his discharge.
- Dr. Mario Caycedo (referring physician) initiated preliminary MEB processing; multiple specialty evaluations followed (pulmonary, rheumatology, neurosurgery). Coburn refused offered spine surgery.
- After reviewing updated records, Dr. Caycedo withdrew the MEB referral and Colonel Wayne Schirner (appointing/approving physician) declined to empanel an MEB; Coburn was discharged the same day.
- Coburn appealed to the ABCMR, then the district court, and this Court; in Coburn I the Court remanded for the ABCMR to provide a reasoned explanation on several points.
- On remand the ABCMR reaffirmed termination of MEB processing, concluding Coburn’s conditions did not warrant disability evaluation; the district court upheld that decision and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appointing/approving physician (Col. Schirner) lawfully terminated MEB before empaneling | Coburn: Col. Schirner lacked authority; terminating equates to unlawful participation in MEB decision-making (contrary to para. 7-13) | Army: Appointing physician supervises MEB process and may decide not to empanel if referral no longer warranted | Held: Army’s interpretation reasonable; Schirner lawfully declined to empanel and terminate MEB |
| Whether referring physician (Dr. Caycedo) could withdraw the MEB referral | Coburn: Once initiated, MEB processing cannot be terminated; withdrawal improper | Army: Referring physician can revoke referral during pre-empanelment oversight if condition no longer warrants MEB | Held: Withdrawal was permissible and not arbitrary or capricious |
| Whether the medical record required empaneling an MEB (factual sufficiency) | Coburn: His back condition had not improved and warranted further disability evaluation | Army/ABCMR: Records show no herniation, no radiculopathy, and condition managed with conservative treatment; post-referral records support termination | Held: Substantial evidence supports ABCMR; MEB not medically necessary |
| Appropriate standard of review / deference | Coburn: Army not entitled to special military deference here | Army: Administrative deference appropriate (and military expertise relevant) | Held: Court applied ordinary APA review; even under that standard ABCMR action was lawful (no need to resolve special deference issue) |
Key Cases Cited
- Coburn v. McHugh, 679 F.3d 924 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (prior remand directing ABCMR to explain aspects of its decision)
- Fontana v. White, 334 F.3d 80 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (standard for district-court review of ABCMR decisions)
- Holland v. Nat’l Mining Ass’n, 309 F.3d 808 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (reviewing agency action under APA de novo)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (agency must examine relevant data and articulate satisfactory explanation)
- Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296 (1983) (substantial-evidence standard in military personnel contexts)
- Kreis v. Sec’y of Air Force, 406 F.3d 684 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (discussion of special deference for military judgments)