Stoneburner v. Secy of the Army

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 97-50765
Summary Calendar
WILLIAM D. STONEBURNER, Lieutenant Colonel,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY; ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTIONS
OF MILITARY RECORDS,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
September 8, 1998
Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:
William D. Stoneburner, a Lieutenant Colonel in the United
States Army Reserve, appeals the grant of summary judgment
dismissing his challenge to an Army Board for Correction of
Military Records’ (“ABCMR”) decision. Stoneburner sought to have
the evaluations submitted by his rating officers removed from his
Officer Evaluation Report (“OER”). He alleges that the ABCMR’s
denial of his request was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of
discretion, and unsupported by substantial evidence. He also
alleges that the Army’s evaluation procedures violate the Equal
Protection Clause. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
While on active duty at Fort Hood, Texas, Stoneburner
underwent a routine performance and promotion potential evaluation
covering the period from June 1, 1986 through May 31, 1987. He was
evaluated by the rater, Lt. Colonel Ronald W. English,(“English”)
and by the senior rater, Colonel Lawrence C. Richardson
(“Richardson”). Richardson became Stoneburner’s commander and
senior rater March 2, 1987. From that date through May 28, 1987,
his last day of active duty at Fort Hood, Stoneburner was in a
nonrated status1 for 53 days and was absent from observation
another 12 days.
To qualify as a senior rater, AR 623-105, ¶ 3-10(b)(1)
requires that the senior rater serve in that capacity for a
minimum of 60 calendar days, without regard to the rated officer’s
rated or nonrated status. The rater, however, qualifies to
evaluate the rated officer only if the rated officer remains in a
rated status at least 90 days during the rating period. AR 623-
105, ¶ 4-10(c)(3). Richardson had 88 days, including both rated
and nonrated days, to observe and evaluate Stoneburner; English
1
Being in nonrated status means that the officer being evaluated
is not performing work related to his duty position. Stoneburner
was on leave and in school preparing for a new assignment during
the 53 days.
2
also qualified as an evaluator, having observed Stoneburner for at
least 90 rated days before rendering his report.
English rated Stoneburner favorably, giving him the highest
ratings for performance and professionalism and described his
performance and potential as “always exceed[ing] requirement.” He
commented that “LTC Stoneburner has performed his duties as
Operations and Training Officer in an exemplary manner. . . . LTC
Stoneburner is a fine U.S. Army Reserve Officer and has
demonstrated his ability to serve on active duty with the
competence to make a professional contribution.” He recommended,
however, that Stoneburner be promoted with his contemporaries, not
ahead of them. He also recommended that Stoneburner be continued
in the U.S. Army Reserve when he reached his mandatory release from
active duty.
Richardson, the senior rater, assigned Stoneburner a mediocre
rating in potential, two ranks lower than other lieutenant colonels
whom he evaluated at the same time. He added the following
narrative comments to that section of the OER:
Fully concur with rater’s comments. During my
observation of LTC Stoneburner’s performance
he has demonstrated a very capable ability to
plan, schedule, and coordinate Reserve
Component training. He is a good staff
officer and consistantly [sic] meets the
standards of Lieutenant Colonel on active duty
and should continue to serve at that level on
a higher headquarters staff where he can make
significant contributions to the mobilization
and training readiness of Reserve Component
units.
3
After receiving the OER, Stoneburner requested a “Commander’s
Inquiry” to correct alleged errors and injustices in the report.
Administrative errors were corrected and the Commander, Lt. General
Crosbie Saint, determined that those errors did not invalidate the
report. He further determined that the senior rater evaluation and
comments were not illegal because Richardson was technically
qualified to perform the rating. He did question the fairness of
an evaluation by a senior rater who had had only a minimum
observation period rather than an evaluation completed by the
longer-serving departing senior rater.
Stoneburner next appealed to the Officer Special Review Board
(“OSRB”), requesting that the OER senior rater portion be deleted
because the evaluation was unjust and illegal. In an OSRB
interview, Richardson acknowledged that he had placed Stoneburner
at the low end of his personal senior rater profile. He insisted,
however, that the ranking was appropriate, based on his
observations and review of Stoneburner’s work. He viewed the OER
results as fair, accurate, and objective. The OSRB found no basis
for making an exception to the regulatory policy that determines a
senior rater’s eligibility. It further concluded that Stoneburner
had not provided clear and convincing evidence to justify a
deletion or amendment to the OER.
Stoneburner appealed a second time to the OSRB, raising
essentially the same allegations. The OSRB contacted the rater,
English, who reported that Stoneburner’s performance over the last
4
five to six months of the rating period had deteriorated
significantly. He cited “a bad attitude” and noted that
Stoneburner “did not want to come to work and, when he did, his
appearance did not represent what was expected of a field grade
officer.”
In a second interview, Richardson stated that because of his
limited access to Stoneburner, he had “based much of his impression
of the appellant’s performance and potential on comments from the
previous SR [senior rater] during their two week overlap when the
SR ‘sized-up’ the appellant and other personnel.” Richardson
further explained that he had personally prepared his own OER
comments and, because he did not see Stoneburner as having
potential for promotion to full colonel, he had rated him
accordingly.
The OSRB denied this second appeal, again finding that
Stoneburner had failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to
justify the deletion or amendment of the OER. It did not address
Stoneburner’s constitutional challenge to AR 623-105; it did
determine, however, that the senior rater had adequate information
available to prepare his portion of the OER. The OSRB further
found that the rater’s evaluation was not contradictory or
ambiguous.
Stoneburner’s third appeal was to the Army Board for
Corrections of Military Records. The ABCMR concluded, inter alia,
that the OER did not meet the criteria to be classified as a
5
referred report.2 It found that the senior rater had met the
minimum time in the position necessary to provide an evaluation. It
further found that Stoneburner’s due process claim was not
supported by the record because the applicable administrative
procedures had been followed. It determined that the OER appeared
to “represent a fair, objective and valid appraisal of
[Stoneburner’s] demonstrated performance and potential during the
period in question.” In making its decision, the ABCMR obtained an
advisory opinion from the OSRB. The OSRB found for the third time
that Stoneburner had not provided clear and convincing evidence to
support his contentions nor had he established that the OER met the
AR 623-105 referral requirements. Thus the ABCMR determined that
Stoneburner failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
Stoneburner appealed the ABCMR decision to the district court.
He claimed that the ABCMR’s decision was arbitrary, capricious,
contrary to law, or unsupported by substantial evidence. His
amended complaint alleged that the OER was erroneous, improper, and
unjust because various provisions of AR 623-105 were disregarded.
The Army moved for summary judgment, denying Stoneburner’s
allegations against the ABCMR.
Stoneburner filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. He
2
A referred report is one that has an adverse impact upon the
rated officer’s military career. Such reports are referred to the
rated officer so that he may respond to the allegations before the
report is placed in his personnel file. AR 623-105 4-27.
6
attacked the constitutionality of the ABCMR decision and
additionally argued that the ABCMR’s refusal to classify the
contested OER as a “referred” report was arbitrary and capricious.
He pointed to Richardson’s interview and statement that Stoneburner
lacked the potential to be a full colonel in support of this
contention. He also disputed the ABCMR’s decision that the OER was
not invalid. He again argued that Richardson was not eligible
under AR 623-105, ¶ 3-10(b)(1) to act as a senior rater. He
contended that regulation’s inclusion of non-rated time for
qualification denied Richardson sufficient observation time for a
just evaluation.
The district court granted the Army summary judgment. It
determined that the ABCMR had the entire record before it in making
its decision. It concluded that the record supported the ABCMR’s
determination that the OER should not have been classified as a
referred report, and that Stoneburner failed to show that the
ABCMR’s decision to deny him relief was either arbitrary or
capricious or that it was not based upon substantial evidence. The
district court also determined that Stoneburner did not identify a
protected property interest and so did not establish the
deprivation of either substantive or procedural due process.
Finally, the district court concluded that Stoneburner had not
identified the manner in which he had been denied equal protection.
Stoneburner moved for reconsideration of the classification of
the OER as a referred report. He also requested that the court
7
clarify whether it had determined that AR 623-105 violates the
Equal Protection Clause because it permits an officer to be rated
by a senior rater who may have less than 60 days of rated time
within which to observe and evaluate the rated officer. The
district court denied the motion. Stoneburner appeals.
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
This court reviews a district court’s grant of summary
judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court.
Fed. R. civ. P. 56(c).
The ABCMR, a civilian board appointed by the Secretary of the
Army, has statutory authority to “correct any [Army] record” if
necessary to “correct an error or remove an injustice.” 10 U.S.C.
§ 15552(a)(1). ABCMR decisions “are subject to judicial review and
can be set aside if they are arbitrary, capricious or not based on
substantial evidence.” Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296, 303
(1983); Geyen v. Marsh, 782 F.2d 1351, 1352 (5th Cir. 1986). A
federal court may not review the ABCMR’s decision de novo, Geyen
at 1352, because “[J]udges are not given the task of running the
Army.” Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83 (1953). Thus, judicial
review of the Board’s decision is limited to the record before the
Board at the time of its decision. Geyen v. Marsh, 775 F.2d 1303,
1309 (5th Cir. 1985).
B. The Officer Evaluation Report
8
Stoneburner attacks the validity of the OER on two grounds.
First, he contends that Richardson was not eligible to serve as his
senior rater and thus his ratings were unfair and unjust. Second,
he argues that the report should have been referred because it
contained negative comments that indicated Stoneburner should not
be promoted. We will examine each argument in turn.
To evaluate a rated officer, “the senior rater must normally
serve in that capacity for a minimum of 60 calendar days.” AR 623-
105, ¶3-10(b)(1). He is directed to “[u]se all reasonable means to
become familiar with the rated officer’s performance.” AR 623-105,
¶ 3-12(a). Those means include personal contacts, records and
reports, and the rater’s evaluations. Id. In response to General
Saint’s request for clarification of the policy requiring the rater
to qualify based on rated days and the senior rater to qualify
solely on calendar days, the U.S. Total Army Personnel Agency
explained the reason for the difference:
The relationship between the rater and the
rated officer is the most important in the
rating chain. It most often determines the
nature of performance and the resulting
evaluation. As a result, this relationship
requires the longest qualification
requirement, determines whether a report is
prepared, and is the only relationship
affected by the rated officer’s non-rated
time.
The responsibility relationship between the
rated officer and other rating officials (dual
supervisor, intermediate rater, or senior
rater) has less impact on actual performance
and is mainly associated with an evaluation of
potential. These relationships, therefore,
9
deliberately have shorter qualification
requirements, do not normally determine
whether a report is required, and are not
affected by rated officer non-rated time.
The ABCMR thus determined that the nonrated time accrued by
the rated officer does not affect the qualifications or eligibility
of the senior rater to provide an evaluation after serving the
minimum time in that position.
We find that there is substantial evidence to support the
ABCMR’s decision that Richardson was eligible to serve as
Stoneburner’s senior rater and that he fairly evaluated
Stoneburner. He served as senior rater from his arrival on March
2, 1989, until May 28, 1989, Stoneburner’s last duty day of the OER
period. This 88-day period therefore met the 60-calendar-day
regulatory requirement. Richardson used all the recommended means
in making his evaluation, including input from the prior senior
rater. Accordingly, the record supports ABCMR’s determination that
Richardson was eligible to serve as Stoneburner’s senior rater and
that his evaluation was “a fair, objective[,] and valid appraisal.”
Stoneburner also complains that the ABCMR’s decision that the
OER was not a referred report was arbitrary and capricious and not
based on substantial evidence. We disagree.
The reports that are classified as referred include:
a. A relief for cause report submitted. . .
b. Any report with negative remarks about
the rated officer’s professional ethics
in Part IVb, and/or in the rating
official’s narrative evaluation(s).
c. Any report with a rating of 4 or 5 in any
10
of the 14 attributes in Part IVa.
d. Any report resulting in a performance
evaluation of “Often failed requirements”
or “Usually failed requirements” in Part
Vb.
e. Any report with a potential evaluation in
Part Vd of “Do not promote” or narrative
comments to that effect from any rating
official.
f. Any report with a potential evaluation in
Part Vd of “Other,” where the required
explanation has derogatory information.
g. Any report with a senior rater potential
evaluation in one of the bottom three
blocks in Part VIIa.
h. Any report with ratings or comments that,
in the opinion of the senior rater, are
so derogatory that the report may have an
adverse impact on the rated officer’s
career.
i. Any report with an entry of “FAIL” in
Part IVa, item 3, indicating
noncompliance with AR 350-15; or an entry
of “NO” in Part IVa, item 12, indicating
noncompliance with AR 600-9.
AR 623-105, ¶4-27.
The ABCMR found that Stoneburner’s OER met none of the
criteria set out above and did not contain ratings and comments so
derogatory that the report would have an adverse impact on
Stoneburner’s career. Stoneburner contends that the evaluation
remarks indicating that he should continue to serve at duty
positions of similar levels of responsibility were the same as a
comment of “do not promote.”
English, the rater, gave all “1's,” the highest rating, in all
14 attributes in part IVa. In Part IVb, the performance and
potential evaluation, he marked the box “Always exceeded
requirement.” In the comments section, the rater stated “LTC
11
Stoneburner has performed his duties as Operations and Training
Officer in an exemplary manner. . . . LTC Stoneburner is a fine
U.S. Army Reserve Officer and has demonstrated his ability to serve
on active duty with the competence to make a professional
contribution.” When presented with the choices for promotion,
English marked the box “Promote with contemporaries.” He did not
select “Promote ahead of contemporaries,” “Do not promote,” or
“Other.” In commenting on Stoneburner’s potential, he wrote, “LTC
Stoneburner should be continued in the U.S. Army Reserve as an
Individual Ready Reservist when he reaches his mandatory release
from active duty in June 1990.” None of these ratings or comments
were sufficient to cause the senior rater to consider them
derogatory and consequently classify this as a referred report.
The senior rater, Richardson, assigned mediocre ratings to
Stoneburner in his portion of the OER. Under Part VIIa, when given
nine levels from which to choose in assessing Stoneburner’s
potential, he marked the fifth level. He commented that
Stoneburner “should continue to serve at that level on a higher
headquarters staff where he can make significant contributions to
the mobilization and training readiness of Reserve Component
units.”
Stoneburner argues that his OER is similar to the OER in Muse,
where the rated officer received “superior” ratings in one portion
of his report but obviously disparaging remarks in another portion.
Muse v. United States, 21 Ct. Cl. 592 (1990). In Muse, the
12
“superior” ratings were accompanied by clearly contradictory
comments: “[Muse’s] performance as trial counsel was erratic. he
was frequently criticized for ineffective courtroom performance.
He is not a good public speaker and was not always thoroughly
prepared in court.” Id. at 606. We find that the raters’ comments
on Stoneburner’s performance and potential a far cry from the
derogatory comments found in Muse’s OER. We conclude that
Stoneburner’s raters’ comments do not rise to a level that could be
considered adverse to his career.
In sum, none of the ratings or comments fall within the
guidelines for a referred report. Although interviews with both
English and Richardson during the OSRB investigations reveal that
both raters doubted Stoneburner’s potential for advancement, the
OER did not reflect this.
A review of the summary judgment proof reflects that the ABCMR
had the entire record before it in making its decision. That
record included the reports and investigations conducted during
Stoneburner’s two appeals to the OSRB, as well as a third
investigation by the OSRB at ABCMR’s request. The ABCMR also
considered the OER, Stoneburner’s application for correction of
military records, his military personnel records, the opinions from
the OSRB and the pertinent Army regulations and C.F.R. sections.
Thus, we find that Stoneburner has not established that the
ABCMR’s decision was not based on substantial evidence or that it
was either arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, we affirm the
13
district court’s ruling on that point.
C. Equal Protection Violation
Stoneburner contends that the Army’s regulatory criteria for
determining the qualifications of senior raters violate equal
protection. He claims that he was denied equal protection because
there is no requirement that he, as the rated officer, be in 60
days of rated time in order for the senior rater to be eligible to
serve as his senior rater although there is such a requirement for
raters.3 He argues that the evaluation prepared by his senior
rater was less fair than an OER prepared for a rated officer who
was in rated time for the entire 60 days.
The Equal Protection Clause, as incorporated into the Fifth
Amendment’s due process right4, essentially directs that all
persons similarly situated be treated alike. City of Cleburne v.
Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). To state
an equal protection claim Stoneburner must allege, inter alia, that
similarly situated individuals were treated differently. Muhammad
v. Lynaugh, 966 F.2d 901, 903 (5th Cir. 1992). He must also
allege purposeful or intentional discrimination. McCleskey v.
Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 292 (1987). Stoneburner must show that the
Army has no rational basis for treating similarly situated persons
3
AR 623-105, ¶ 3-10(b)(1); AR 623-105, ¶ 4-10(c)(3).
4
Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954).
14
differently.5
Stoneburner appears to argue that not all lieutenant colonels
are treated alike in their ratings, i.e., some have more rated days
in which to be evaluated by senior raters than he and other
lieutenant colonels have. We question the class Stoneburner has
fashioned to make this claim. His argument merely rehashes his
earlier claim that Richardson was not qualified to be his senior
rater.
Assuming, however, that he has identified a legitimate class,
Stoneburner fails to show that the Army’s regulation has no
rational basis. The regulations explain that the senior rater
evaluates the rated officer “from a broad organizational
perspective.” AR 623-105, ¶ 3-10(a). In its explanation of the
different roles of the rater and senior rater, supra, § IIB, the
U.S. Army Total Personnel Agency opinion provides this rational
basis. The Army also points to the undue administrative burden
officers in the field would suffer if they had to keep track of
nonrated time to qualify senior raters. We consider this concern
an additional rational basis for requiring only calendar days to
qualify a senior rater. We also find that Stoneburner has failed to
establish purposeful or intentional discrimination in the
application of the Army’s OER regulations. Consequently, we affirm
5
Guerra v. Scruggs, 942 F.2d 270, 279 (4th Cir. 1991). (because
no fundamental right or suspect classification is involved,
rational basis test applies).
15
the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the equal
protection issue and deny Stoneburner’s motion to enlarge the
record.
AFFIRMED.
16