Joseph Hoffler v. Charles Hagel
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:14-cv-00063-D. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000027837]. [15-2341]
Appeal: 15-2341
Doc: 40
Filed: 02/22/2017
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2341
JOSEPH W. HOFFLER, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF-Retired,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAMES N. MATTIS, Secretary
Secretary of the Air Force,
of
Defense;
LISA
S.
DISBROW,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City.
James C. Dever
III, Chief District Judge. (2:14-cv-00063-D)
Submitted:
August 31, 2016
Decided:
February 22, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Paul K. Sun, Jr., ELLIS & WINTERS LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellant.
John Stuart Bruce, Acting United States
Attorney, Matthew L. Fesak, Assistant United States Attorney,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-2341
Doc: 40
Filed: 02/22/2017
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Joseph W. Hoffler, a retired Lieutenant Colonel with the
United
States
Air
Force,
appeals
the
district
court’s
order
dismissing in part and granting summary judgment in part to the
Defendants in Hoffler’s action challenging the Air Force Board
for Correction of Military Records’ (“AFBCMR” or “Board”) denial
of Hoffler’s application for correction.
For the reasons that
follow, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.
“We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, employing
the same standards used by the district court.”
United
States,
95
F.3d
339,
348
(4th
Cir.
Randall v.
1996).
Summary
judgment is appropriate when no genuine dispute of material fact
exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
“Only disputes over facts that
might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law
will
properly
preclude
the
entry
of
summary
judgment.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
Decisions of the AFBCMR are final agency actions subject to
judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296, 303 (1983).
decisions
can
only
be
set
aside
by
this
See
The Board’s
court
if
they
are
arbitrary, capricious, not based on substantial evidence, or not
in
accordance
with
law.
Id.;
Randall,
95
F.3d
at
348;
Mickens v. United States, 760 F.2d 539, 541 (4th Cir. 1985); see
2
Appeal: 15-2341
Doc: 40
Filed: 02/22/2017
5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (2012).
Pg: 3 of 4
“In determining whether agency action
was arbitrary or capricious, the court must consider whether the
agency considered the relevant factors and whether a clear error
of judgment was made.”
Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal. v. Aracoma Coal
Co., 556 F.3d 177, 192 (4th Cir. 2009).
Hoffler
contends
that
the
AFBCMR
acted
arbitrarily
and
capriciously in rejecting his claim that he should have been
promoted to colonel by the 1984 promotion board.
The scope of
judicial review of military promotion decisions is very limited.
Unless a special selection board (“SSB”) has been convened, our
jurisdiction
over
“review[ing]
a
military
determination
promotion
by
the
claims
is
Secretary
limited
of
a
military
department . . . not to convene a special selection board.”
U.S.C. § 628(g)(1)(A) (2012); see also § 628(h).
to
10
No SSB was
convened for Hoffler, and Hoffler did not request that one be
convened.
Thus, we lack jurisdiction over Hoffler’s promotion
claim and must dismiss this portion of his appeal.
Hoffler also asserts that the AFBCMR acted arbitrarily and
capriciously
reprimand
in
denying
(“LOR”)
from
his
his
request
file.
He
to
remove
argues
a
that
letter
the
of
Board
failed to consider the determination of an Equal Opportunity and
Treatment (“EOT”) inquiry that the investigation underlying the
LOR was flawed.
We disagree.
The AFBCMR expressly acknowledged
some of the conclusions of the EOT inquiry that Hoffler alleges
3
Appeal: 15-2341
it
Doc: 40
Filed: 02/22/2017
overlooked.
reasonably
in
acknowledged
Moreover,
refusing
Hoffler’s
to
we
Pg: 4 of 4
conclude
remove
attacks
on
the
that
LOR.
the
the
Board
While
procedure
the
of
acted
Board
the
LOR
investigation, it was faced with Hoffler’s own admission that he
committed the reprimanded conduct.
Finally,
Hoffler
challenges
the
Board’s
refusal
to
reinstate his Meritorious Service Medal, which was revoked in
1985.
Although
the
record
contains
various
assertions
by
Hoffler as to why the revocation of his medal was improper,
these
assertions
speculation.
constitute
no
more
than
unsubstantiated
We concur with the district court that Hoffler has
failed to provide evidence that the discretionary decision to
revoke the medal was inappropriate.
Accordingly,
we
dismiss
Hoffler’s
affirm as to Hoffler’s remaining claims.
promotion
claim
and
We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
expressed in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?