David Goldwasser v. Harold Brown, Secretary of the Air Force

targets public reproach private ac- phantom defects administrative supports reality they turn extortion. I this record believe insensitive to tion but presents finding cry the same that this individual “shame” at their heads and regard calling potential in this avoiding more than a risk of the chorus time outlining scope proper his termination will serve the and that cases efficiency Despite agency judicial of the service. review determina- puffery They shrug to float billows that continue off the Commission’s tions. subject, wayward opinions I findings on this has out of recent that this traveler theory engaged off-duty that homosexual homosexual conduct believe any way periods to the experiences of mem- is not in related conduct and that he govern- drinking efficiency ory after and effectiveness “blackout” while theory— suspects evil that he mental business is which he assumes very just engaged activ- unrealistic one. has overt homosexual ity, pursue in order to exotic ideas lurk- legal Picking

ing in the underbrush. way quagmire of rhetoric

their across a reasoning,

they engage in casuistic false, chide

clever but the Commission delegated frustrate its function. plainly

This court held in case of Summerfield,

Hargett U.S.App. v. 85, 88, (1957), D.C. F.2d GOLDWASSER, Appellant, David “employee discipline removal and are al agen entirely most matters of executive cy Secretary discretion,” “that, long BROWN, Harold so Force, et al. compliance there substantial [is] * * * applicable procedures ad No. re ministrative [is] determination Court United States good judg to the wisdom or viewable as of Columbia Circuit. District * * * department

ment of the ex- 11, 1969. Argued June ercising (Citations discretion.” [its] Sept. omitted.) I fol- Decided have felt constrained to again, see, g., time low this view e. Macy,

dissenting opinion in Meehan v. (No. 20,812, May

U.S.App.D.C. decided 1969) (en banc), although in so

doing I remain vox clamantis regard

deserto. to this case I am With substantially convinced that record supports action of the Commission

dismissing promote inman order to of the service and accord-

ingly, I affirm. would To do otherwise implicate setting inme

precedent proposition for the that off-

duty conduct, coupled homosexual with a “blackingout”

capacity for intoxi- while

cated, relationship bears no real

functioning of an with- efficient service government agency. Homosexuals, in a sadly enough, do not their leave emotions Lafayette Square regardless spiritual Bazelon, Judge, dissented. their destinies still Chief Language in the Air Force instructor Base, Tex- Lackland School English job was to teach His basic as. foreign military in this coun-

to try officers guests of the U. Government. S. charge against that, him was in the The Washington, Speiser, D. Mr. Lawrence warnings prior face of of that discussion Cramer, C., Mr. M. Michael whom with subjects (i. e., pol- religion, controversial brief, C., for Washington, onwas D. during ities, race) the class hours was appellant. contrary policy, to he made Atty., Zimmerman, Asst. U. S. Mr. Gil sepa- such forbidden statements on two Bress, U. S. David G. Messrs. whom with to rate occasions his classes. One was filed, Atty., brief was the time the to the effect that who burn those them- Atty., Q. Nebeker, U. Asst. S. Frank protest against selves to death as a filed, on were time the brief was heroes, Viet Nam War are the true appellees. brief, C. Messrs. John courage he had wished he to do it Knopf Eldridge, V. and Robert Norman himself. The other was that Jews are Justice, Attys., Zener, Department al- of America, discriminated appellees. appearances for so entered that he had felt such discrimination throughout life, including his service Judge, BAZELON, WIL- Chief Before Language at the Judge, School. MILLER, Circuit K. Senior BUR McGOWAN, Judge. Circuit Language of the re- The Chief School garded part appel- this conduct on the Judge: McGOWAN, Circuit lant, repeatedly after been warn- discharge employee case federal This engage it, prejudicial to ed not to as by on Court the District heard the interests ernment, United States Gov- judgment, summary cross-motions ground and this was stated appeal ad- a decision is from discharge given ap- notice of to evidentiary employee. The to the verse pellant. The ultimate resides issue the admin- the court was before record statutory formulation that “[N]o proceed- compiled in the record istrative person in the classified civil service ings the Civil Commission before Service the United States shall be removed suspended agency following upon appeal to that * * * except for such discharge by appellant’s promote cause as will procedural errors Force.1 A number of ” * * * such service 652 U.S.C. § rendering the Commis- are asserted (a) (now 5 U.S.C. recodified § addition, it sion’s action defective. wording). minor variations in appellant’s em- is said that terminate given ployment for the is to reason hearing appeal appellant’s A upon rights protected by Con- by trench stitution, especially held Commission was Civil Service Amend- Region- the First Appeals Examiner of the Dallas find by ment. We of these conten- position appel- none taken al Office. compelling, tions to be and we affirm the the two he had not made lant was District Court. he him and that attributed to statements charges therefore, was,' innocent I according represented, against him. He employee Examiner, Appellant a that he could civilian language who because Air Force served as have made the statements required review, solely need reference We have adverted before record, legislative the situation the administrative Commis reexamination Connelly respect presently See sion’s determinations. which obtains with Nitze, U.S.App.D.C. judicial 401 F.2d Service Commis review Civil appears n. 1 There sion determinations. why no reason courts should two personal direction, (1) Nam did views on Viet control and and that the fail- the U. Gov- from those of S. ure them at differ not ernment, experienced impede ra- (2) appellant’s had not a conscious effort to alleged (3) discrimination, presentation of his cial defense. any possible alien to statements witnesses for- were the days plan for lesson discussion eign ap- officers the classes to which question.2 pellant allegedly offending made the Appeals Exam- record before statements. The record shows that on January 14, 1966, just from Air Force iner included affidavits after the Lan- report by guage personnel, gave appellant Civil preliminary Service School investigator, and oral testi- proposed written notice of its dismissal mony appellant and opportunity other witnesses action and of his to answer Appeals charges upon behalf. The Examiner on his which such dismissal supported based, concluded that the evidence appellant’s would be retained charges against appellant that responded denying a counsel in letter charges he question made the in had fact statements purporting give to no- re- that, after been warned to persisted tice if the Air Force from such conduct. appellant’s removal, frain appellant would re- quire personal presence of the for- Appeals Commission’s The Board eign at the students hear- finding Commission and Review sustained against as ing and that he to challenge looked the Air Force contrary that it was presence. to that assure weight After the evidence, final to it forthcoming notice of dismissal was to went on find Force had days later, appellant’s few “arbitrary, counsel wrote capricious, not been reasonable, or un- again, identifying some additional for- [appellant’s and that dis- eign stating students and ex- charge] the same pro- was for such cause as will pectation presence. as to their The con- mote the service.” The letters, however, cern of these was that adopted Commission its the decision of might the students finish their visits Board appellant’s request and Review and denied depart hearing, before the and it reopening and re- appeared purpose to be counsel’s consideration. departure be he notified of such in time arrange depositions for him to to take II appellant’s expense. appellant’s turnWe to first claims procedural inadequacies Force, 7, 1966, February the Commis- The Air on proceedings. principal sion appellant’s The one of wrote counsel that the for- these is that eign a fair was country denied students were in the on in- appellant because the such, Air Force they failed vitational travel orders. As pursuant certain “guests witnesses to were said to be in effect appellant’s request. These witnesses United States Government” and not un- were said to military be under the Air aecording- Force’s jurisdiction; der argument arguments In the written submitted on in head-on stu- with Arab appellant’s problem. behalf Exami- dents over the Arab-Israel ner, appeared: position through- this statement essential concede, initially that, proceedings will We just have to out Commission was good get as a matter common horse out to him because sense, position assignment— instructors his teach- he had resisted an overseas foreign assignment students should do their which was after cancelled subjects, Congressman appellant’s utmost to avoid controversial had intervened Thus, appellant and there is no on behalf. attacked charges been had counseled to avoid controver- him as fabrications subjects. instance, masking discharge, sial For it is sim- the true reason for ply good improper grounds matter common horse and not as for dis- Goldwasser, charge sense for Mr. with if true. background, engaging Yiddish to avoid position approaching Instead of the students “in no ly, Air Force however, ap- directly, appellant’s your request” counsel action take that, appeal hearing. peared to with the produced conclude be students filed, prefer he would follows: on as letter went The do so. On to have the Commission May until here will The students 4, 1966, Appeals Ex- he wrote the March discretionary with entirely is it requesting that the Commission’s aminer make would whether as to them investigator students. interview or appear witnesses statements, investigator do was instructed ques- part matter take so, efforts in this and the result of his however, liberty, are at You tion. regard portion of his is described directly them communicate margin.3 report set forth in the appropriate you so desire. should your com- to address method hearing, appellant objected At Officer Liaison munication the failure the Air Force to have the respective na- Officer Senior Ap- students as witnesses. stu- group. the Iranian For tional peals pointed appel- Examiner out Captain Officer the Liaison dents lant had been notified that the Commis- Surfrider, Mirhosseini, Mehdi subpoena power sion no had it Texas; Antonio, the Greek San appellant’s arrange responsibility Cap- is students, Officer the Senior appearance for the of witnesses. He di- - AF, Triantfillos, Greece tain John hearing proceed. Appel- rected that the Tex; 2, and AFB Lackland # CHR lant himself testified as to conversations Japanese Officer the Senior he had had with some of the students Imata, Major Ja- is Junkichi students they they in which stated that did - 2, AF, AFB Lackland pan # CMR having remember his made the remarks relay your They re- in turn will Tex. question. cross-examination, ap- On question and quest students to the pellant any said he had not asked you sure, will, advise I am students for written statements you may expect “since from them. action definitely pro- were Briefing not in favor of the In- indicated tlie instructions posal. They they vestigator indicated that had been from should obtain affidavits get Appellant. instructed not to involved in United of the former students ten They Iran, they States’ matters. felt that from said were Five of these students Japan. was this a local matter which should be from and one from Greece four by Language They Foreign handled School. Air Force Lan- students they Base, agree School, did guage that would contact Air Force Lackland by students, guests whose were furnished and names are of the Government IT.S. Appellant, explain jurisdiction military them the matter to are not under any testify. group and see if They of them desired to Air Bach national Force. U.S. reported represented both back that each of or a a Liaison Officer is students, meeting their whose names were fur- held with A was Senior Officer. nished, were contacted and that none from Iran and the Officer the Liaison * * * testimony Japan. give these desired to from Greece Officers Senior investigation purpose or an affidavit. The explained this Major they Imata, told Junkichi the Senior Of- were to them Japan, Appel- only persons ficer from sub- was one of the available to Appel- students, lant's former whose name was contentions of stantiate joined juris- listed as De- their the class on the students under lant were diction, Major cember information could Imata declined and that this making to take an oath or on this case. execute an affidavit. a decision be vital testimony merely They vol- He Appellant’s he stated that while told that appreciated, class whether he had no recollection would be unteered Ap- Appellant making any remarks unfavorable to the or it be favorable respective concerning pellant, students discrimination Jews their and that subject subpoena concerning people or who discussion not ever would by burning commit in a court. suicide themselves. be a witness from Iran and He stated Liaison Officer familiar with they indicated world “immolation.” from Greece Senior Officer 1174 they appear testify he believed 1102, 10 L.Ed.2d 136 But this hearing, showing at the time of the his behalf record is far from such conduct personally

but that he had not found, rather, asked as this. The Examiner appear students to foreign the time that the Air Force left the stu hearing Commission’s since he under- dents free to do as wished about Attorney testifying hearing, gave stood ap that he did not at the pellant have access to these complete individuals.” The full and access to them. representative hearing Air Appellant pursue Force at the failed to that access any systematically stated that Air effectively, Force had not at or time position, interviewed precise the students on this no whatever the rela subject, tionship foreign and had no information as to students their may been, recollections. Air Force have to claim un amounting fairness to a breach proce- saw no Examiner Bishop McKee, Constitution. v. 400 Cf. all this. He found as dural error in 1968); (10th F.2d 87 Cir. Brown v. Air were not fact the students Zuckert, (7th 1965), F.2d 461 Cir. employees; Force Force denied, cert. U.S. appellant full had offered access to (1966); 15 L.Ed.2d 486 and McTiernan them; had talked to some Gronouski, (2d 1964). F.2d Cir. had not asked students but he give testify; them to statements defect, procedural As a second Air Force had not interviewed improp urges it was now the students To itself. the Commission’s tes Force er the Air Review, appellant Board of entirely by timony affi at the asserted that there had been a deliberate regulations, The Commission’s davit. concealment of evidence obtained provided however, expressly interviews with the stu- proceeding, 5 772.304 manner of C.F.R. § dents. The Board concluded that appear (b), to have and these do not supported record ings the Examiner’s find- contemplation beyond of the been underlying contrary; of fact to the and that In statute. U.S.C. § was, taking there on this record and might due appellant any event, any concern peculiar account of the status of the for- could have on this score have entertained eign students, officer no failure request dissipated by his own been Air Force to within witnesses produced for cross-exam the affiants be amounting its control deprivation to a privilege clearly ination—a available to process of due of law. him matter of law. 5 C.F.R. 772.- Having as a § 305(c). failed to manifest that say We cannot that the Commis hearing, concern at we are not sion erred in this view of the matter. disposed to make its assertion regulations being The Commission in overturning the occasion for the Commis that, provided time of the proceeding. Appellant sion was not being subpoena the Commission without right procedural denied a to which he power, arrange each side for the was entitled. He rather must taken be appearance of its 5 C.F.R. witnesses. § decided, light to have in the nature 772.305(c). true, course, It is compatibility of the affidavits and their there can be circumstances where the report investigator, with the employing agency uncooperative is so necessary it was not to exercise it. and aggressively indeed in hostile re sponding to testimony efforts to secure A third claim—made for persons from under appeal control its as to first time this —is proceeding make the unacceptably appellant un Commission failed to afford Zuckert, fair. See process Williams v. Appeals 371 U.S. due of law in 531, 83 S.Ct. 9 L.Ed.2d rehear Examiner had to reach his decision with ing granted and clearly case any remanded for fur out the benefit of articulated proceedings, ther weighing 372 U.S. proof. standard We put the facts before his version of too comes far think this contention competition with that being in oc- late made to warrant supplied by and to have Air Force judicial admin- casion for invalidation whether the decide proceedings. the Commission is one The issue istrative sup- fairly have bringing taken to Force could peculiarly appropriate charges.4 ported its administrative attention in in order tribunal the first instance procedural claim final may opportunity to con- that it have the injury derived sider, necessary, any dispel and to if any provided that regulation which litigants before infirmities which cause years old charges three more than it to doubt the essential fairness connection in considered not be should hearing. employee from any of an removal event, any are not con we Appellant points out that service. appellant informing suffered vinced him of first letter proportions deprivation of constitutional proposed to earlier referred removal Appeals particular. Examin warnings,5 in this outside the of which fell two appears that, says treated the case Despite ap- er to have year limit. three looking involving in differ evidence pellant, Appeals one Examiner referred directions, job that his incidents, ent to these two outlawed the more decide which side had mind, made must, therefore, had them in have showing persuasive question of on the making appellant’s prejudice, whether had made the remarks decision. had not. The issue whether he Appeals regarded weight Board Review Whatever placed upon items, given this as the essential task may Examiner have these Examiner, thought however, it the record the Board of amply supported that, result he explicit reached. in its statement Review was used, Whatever the words or which avoid under the in order to might used, describing process, regulation, it them from “had dismissed essentially decision;” arriving here received consideration at its to, namely, entitled adequate preclude chance think we this is Appellant argues that, even this court lant made the same characterization requisite degree procedural testimony hearing. if due See Note process supra. have obtained in 2 be deemed to His defense that had he proceed- things charged, the conduct of the Commission not said the not that finding appellant ing, the made the or harmless that he was not on justify adequate against policy in statements does not of notice a such any will, his removal in conclusion that remarks. statutory phrase, “promote appellant urges upon the ef- To the ficiency” the extent us we, judicial of the classified civil service. in the re exercise of view, the 5 7501. He asserts should set aside the § U.S.C. Commission’s showing any proof, in ad- record is deficient action for want of sufficient we upon impact appellant’s only of conduct look verse to see “whether there evi is employer. per- the interests of his It is dence of substance in record which [the] haps Appeals supports neither the case that the Commission’s view of Dabney Freeman, Examiner nor the Board of matter.” U.S. v. App.D.C. 166, to We Review addressed themselves detail 358 F.2d 533 matter, appears this but this be due to find such evidence here. appellant regard not the fact did hearing. His at- this as an issue at “You had been warned on numerous oc- torney’s response casions, specifically De- first letter on or about 6 proposed 1960, dismissal said that cember 14 March 17 Novem- emphatically September claimed to be innocent of ber 1964 that 1963 and 20 subjects alleged which made the remarks controversial must not be dis- completely foreign “as incon- were characterized cussed with students in the class- gruous you any Despite discussion” of the “lesson room. the follow- this made Appel- foreign plans classes.” in both of these students.” statements pro appellees join identifying and Pickering nullification of the Commission prejudicial Education, ceedings error fear of Board of for Moreover, we share the on this U.S. L.Ed.2d 811 score. (1968), expressed authority. as the most doubt that there was relevant Board’s Appellant urges part error on of view taken by Supreme Examiner, right prejudicial there or The Court of otherwise. warnings speak of a teacher to reference to the earlier his mind without forfeiting job dismissal, complete his them has full and make occasions but application to show that here. was not The unaware Government distinguishes policy against Pickering facts, of the Air Force’s on its but recognizes injection significance teaching into classroom un this case subjects. principle pur related controversial there stated. That pose principle regulation prevent is stated in is essence to be that present discharge public employer’s past conduct of interest proscribed despatch vintage. efficient by of its business no dis charge invariably was not for means what he overrides em- had done years ployee’s back, saying more than three interest but he thinks. because doing he thing two, was still despite Where there is tension between same prior history sought warning. accommodation must be in the notice and balancing process infrequent- which not ly Ill characterizes the task of constitution- interpretation. al challenge pro- judicial In his dismissal, appellant invokes priety are, thus, agree parties protections of the Constitu- substantive upon applied ment the test to be that, if even it tion as well. asserts He Pickering upon result. its classroom assumed that he made the clashing Supreme defined the in Court him statements attributed to and under particularity. terests with some It. alleged, he cannot the circumstances recognized public employment may dismissed for that in- reason without encompass properly upon limitations fringement right his First Amendment speech that would not survive constitu speech, of free Fifth Amend- scrutiny if tional directed right subjected ment not to be to a code private citizen, although there is certain vague. unacceptably of conduct which is ly easy leap proposi no not one The latter contention public necessarily employee tion that meriting in view of treatment detailed monastic vows of silence when assumes by appellant at the made the concessions taxpayer salary. he looks to the for his did not there administrative level. He Government’s interest em suggest surprised that he was the ployer heightening is in the level of the alleged conduct, view taken of his assuring public it services renders confused as to what the Air employees the performance ' appropriate standards class- tasks; their room conduct were. His denials that he efficiency comprehends the maintenance things charged repeatedly said the were prevalence discipline, harmony, of among the of coupled opinions with volunteered that co-workers, and the elimination would, occurred, such conduct if it had may reasonably of conduct which improper. are, thus, have been We not thought “impeded” to have prope,r impressed with his current claim of a performance by daily a teacher of “his deprivation constitutional which is root- Conversely, duties in the classroom.” concept ed in impenetrable speech is to free interest teacher governmental mistiness of a policy or thing say every on have his prohibition. feelings, provided which he about has significant deserves First Amendment issue is no im there likelihood of Appellant pairment efficiency. more sustained examination. of his foreign weights placed in he within classroom to said to be are the What supposed who officers ing were to be learn- Prelim- at hand? case scale cope English-speak- how to with an public school inarily that note we garage repairman, or dentist and not Pickering for fired was not in teacher airing writing for class, his views outside class- but he said in anyone room to would who listen. There newspaper critical of to a letter policies nothing suggest appellant is required that espoused by was Board the School keep opinions his Superintendent himself allocation School circumstances, all times or under all different funds as between of school only the immediate context of programs. his educational specialized highly teaching assignment- taught geography Pickering which —(cid:127) uniqueness appel- immediately we stress algebra pupils or teaching lant’s disposi- function in by our not his front of him was affected point. of this tion uniqueness, expressions. view of that extracurricular say cannot we that appel- case Air Force’s underlying interests the First however, upon rests, largely lant by Amendment were appellant’s served giving supposed to be was fact upon intruding insistence personal his training quick foreign officers classroom, views into the or that his em- utiliza- English, and that efficient basic ployer was disabled those interests time involved the short tion imposing enforcing very Furthermore, ap- importance. critical emerging limited restriction from this foreign teaching of- pellant was not greater record. upon Much limitations science, political events, current ficers public the civil employees freedoms of sociology, relations. international generally have heretofore been sustained. plainly from the record’s evident This is Mitchell, See United Public Workers v. Plan the Lesson disclosure 330 U.S. 91 L.Ed. 754 supposed at the times follow language instruction called Affirmed. subjects “At the Dentist” on Car.” to Test a Used “How anti- Nam and Viet on observations Judge BAZELON, (dissenting): Chief best, have, appear to semitism aspects of this case trouble Several class- the immediate relevance to minimal First, me. properly if Williams Zuckert1 objectives. room read, ques- there is a substantial blinking reality if we would also be We foreign tion whether the students were recognize a class did sufficiently under the Force’s control foreign military at an Air Force officers demand, required, on to make that it was pre- on invitational orders installation good-faith at least effort affecting special na- problems sents Civil them Service interna- in harmonious interest tional hearing. consequently I would remand certainly not are tional relations. We for a District Court determination agency second-guess equipped to Second, question. reading my goals of judgment instructional that the appellant’s the record me convinces jeop- program would be the Air Force arguments to the Civil Service Commis- volunteering teacher’s ardized sion sufficient raise his claims potential explosive- subjects views proscribing (a) that standard group. ness a multi-cultural vague, unconstitutionally conduct us, (b) we must record the Commission did On the before fully appellant’s for what consider was fired whether state- assume 765, 531, dismissed, 1102, 83 83 S.Ct. 10 136 1. 371 U.S. L.Ed.2d Certiorari rehearing (1963). 403, 486, L.Ed.2d S.Ct. 9 remanded, granted U.S. 372 and ease 1178 may “justified grounds well have been sufficient constituted

merits failing attempt.” an to make such The discharge. investigator Civil Service Commission’s regula- involved Zuckert v. Williams only to contact one of the ten was able substantially to the one similar tion directly, persuade and could students regulation case.2 The involved none of them to make affidavits in the party that “the to mean construed attorney matter.7 could well witnesses, either desiring presence of the concluded, argued to have as he the Comm or cross-examina- direct examination ission,8 if Commission could produc- burden the initial tion [has] persuade testify, ap not students to party has But if them.”3 pellant little alone would have chance of discharged initial burden his either so, appellant If this is success. has met regulations applicable under Consequently, initial his burden. if the attempt making timely and sufficient significantly students were under or, presence under the their to obtain control, required Air Force’s it was to fault of and without circumstances failing justified good-faith own, attempt produce make attempt,4 hearing. make such them for the Since the record Agency, demand, required then the on is precise is deficient as status of the good-faith to make at least a effort foreign students, I would remand for a produce It is them.5 no means clear question.9 determination of that appellant’s repeated to me that demands Furthermore, agree ap I cannot the Air Force on were not sufficient arguments pellant’s administrative “attempt to obtain [the students’] ” 6 raising presence; not, they him from here the foreclose but even if level were 1318, Page, 719, regulation provided: U.S. 88 S.Ct. 390 2. in 'Williams (1968), Air L.Ed.2d 255 so tbat 20 is not authorized to Commission required good- subpoena employee make Force would be witnesses. The produce students, designated representative, even faith effort to and the compel employing agency, if their attendance it could must make their own they arrangements appearance refuse. should witnesses. Williams, original opinion 6. In its 3, S.Ct., n. 371 at 532 83 at 404. U.S. Supreme be- Court dismissed certiorari regulation pro- case cause : vides petitioner counsel made neither nor his parties Both are entitled to hearing, any request, prior witnesses but is as Force, the Air of the Commission subpoena not authorized to witnesses examiner, or of the witnesses them- required parties are their make * * selves, appearance *. for their arrangements ajjpearanco own for the (em 532, S.Ct., 404 371 U.S. at 83 of witnesses. added). phasis the italicized lan Unless 772.305(c)(1) 5 C.F.R. § regarded surplusage, guage it is to be S.Ct., (em- in some 3. must be assumed that at least 371 U.S. at 83 at 404 phasis only added). the em circumstances a demand ploying agency is sufficient to meet S.Ct., 4. 372 U.S. at at 1102. production. burden” of “initial Cf. Williams, (1969), adopted 5. were 772.305(c)(2) the desired witnesses § C.F.R. employees Force, days the Air and the after the in this case. 31 (May 3, 1966). Air had Fed.Reg. Court assumed that power compel their attendance. 7. de- The examiner’s lack of success is See 372 1102. U.S. at majority opinion. tailed note 3 of the Here, admittedly were students “employees,” raised a has App. 8. See signifi- substantial claim that cantly Although unquestioned under Air Force’s control. I it that “military re- do not sponsibility think that Force’s students were not under upon questions jurisdiction” Force, should turn power; rather, of ultimate the standard should not be the relevant standard. See supra. should be similar to that set in Barber note 5 grounds not constitute sufficient vagueness and whether questions proved.12 grounds for removal even if sufficient constituted conduct vagueness question of removal. majority for affirms the District Since Ap urged strenuously before deciding appellant's claims without Court Board before peals Examiner10 vagueness and insufficient cause Likewise, he removal, Appeals Review.11 I refrain discussion continuously urged conduct these issues. Ap- impossible lay any specific argued Appellant’s down counsel

10. guidelines * * * instructors follow. peals Examiner: we noth- As a result to make it abundant- wish We would ing “policy” clear, however, ly tak- which is ill-defined we are * * * Agency position does and ethereal. App. right em- 165. have the to muzzle however, feel, ployees. doWe Ap- Appellant’s argued 12. counsel clear, regulating con- must mnezle be charges peals if “Even Examiner: wispy crisp definitive, cise, and not emphatically (which true were vigorously deny), we subject whatever and ethereal and legal grounds is this may interpretation whim suit App. for removal?” 107. particular administrator. argued He to the Board of added). App. (emphasis assuming and Review: “Even argued Goldwasser] [Mr. Board sake of discussion that counsel (which vigor- made these remarks it would of impossible and Review * * * prescrib- ously regulation denies), specifi- to write cally App. ing appellant’s has conduct because Mr. Goldwasser done?” impossible to “con- it would be define subjects” and it would troversial

Case Details

Case Name: David Goldwasser v. Harold Brown, Secretary of the Air Force

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Date Published: Sep 17, 1969

Citation: 417 F.2d 1169

Docket Number: 22253_1

Court Abbreviation: D.C. Cir.