Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Taylor v. Army Review Boards Agency

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division

May 31, 2019

JACKIE LEE TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
v.
ARMY REVIEW BOARD AGENCY, Defendant.

          ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

          JON P. McCALLA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation on the Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment entered by the Magistrate Judge on March 29, 2019. (ECF No. 34.) Although styled as an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, this is an action challenging Defendant Army Review Board Agency (the “Agency”)'s partial denial of Taylor's request for a change to his military records. (Complaint, ECF No. 1; see Pl. Mot. Summ. J, ECF No. 32 at PageID 833 (“I… am asking this court to consider the Administrative Procedure Act in making [its] decision.”).) Specifically, Taylor appeals the Agency's August 31, 2016 decision to upgrade his discharge characterization from “Under Other than Honorable Conditions” to “Under Honorable Conditions (General).” (Complaint, ECF No. 1; Record, ECF No. 30-1 at PageID 135.) Taylor argues that the Agency should have changed his discharge to the more favorable “Honorable” designation instead. (Complaint, ECF No. 1; Record, ECF No. 30-1 at PageID 135.) Taylor also claims that the Agency should have found that his discharge was procedurally improper and asserts that the Agency failed to correct asserted errors in his records. (ECF No. 32 at PageID 833.)

         The Magistrate Judge submits that there is no genuine dispute that the Agency's decision was supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary nor capricious. (ECF No. 34 at PageID 863.) Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant the Agency's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 31), and affirm the Agency's decision. (ECF No. 34 at PageID 864.) Neither party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.

         I.Background

         Taylor began active duty in the U.S. Army on June 26, 1969, and was absent without leave for eighteen months in 1970 and 1971. (Record, ECF No. 34-1 at PageID 123.) Taylor was returned to military control on or around August 17, 1971 and was confined at Fort Campbell, Kentucky from August 20, 1971 to November 15, 1971. (Id. at PageID 114, 123.) On August 23, 1971, Taylor submitted a Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. (Id. at PageID 124-25, 138). Taylor went absent without leave again from November 19 to November 21, 1971, before being confined again. (Id. at PageID 114.) Taylor's Request for Discharge was approved on December 13, 1971 and resulted in a discharge “Under Other than Honorable Conditions.” (Id. at PageID 124-25, 132.)

         On April 9, 2015, Taylor filed an “Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552” with the Agency, in which he stated that he sustained Post Traumatic Stress Disorder while serving in Vietnam. (ECF No. 30-1 at PageID 145.) Taylor requested “that [his] other than honorable discharge be upgraded to honorable and that incomplete and improperly documented records be amended and or removed from [his] military records.” (Id.) On August 2, 2016, the Agency issued the following determination:

1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by re-issuing the applicant's DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), for the period ending 17 December 1971, to show characterization of his service as “Under Honorable Conditions (General)” and his rank/grade as private first class (PFC)/E-3 with a date of rank of 16 December 1969.
2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to:
a. the removal from his record or amendment of documents that he contends are either incomplete or were improperly completed as part of his separation packet; and
b. correcting his DD Form 214, for the period ending 17 December 1971, to show the characterization of his service as “Honorable.”

(Record, ECF No. 30-1 at PageID 135.)

         II. Legal Standard

         Upon reference, the Magistrate Judge may submit proposed findings of fact and dispositive recommendations to the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). “Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A district court reviews de novo only those proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law to which a party specifically objects. Id.; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).

         III. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.