United States District Court, E.D. Washington
DENNIS G. PADDOCK, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
THE COURT is Defendant United States Air Force's (the
“Air Force's”) Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 14,
and Plaintiff Dennis Paddock's Motion to Remand to the
Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (the
“AFBCMR”), ECF No. 18. Having reviewed the
parties' filings and the relevant law, the Court grants
the Motion to Dismiss and denies the Motion to Remand to the
serving in the Air Force, Plaintiff sought a promotion from
the rank of major to lieutenant colonel in the early 1980s.
ECF No. 1-2. After not receiving the promotion on two
occasions, Plaintiff scheduled a retirement date in August
1983 on the basis that he was subject to involuntary
retirement. ECF No. 1-2 at 8; see also 10 U.S.C.
§ 632 (effective Sept. 15, 1981). However, in June 1983,
the Air Force corrected Plaintiff's promotion record, and
he was retroactively promoted to lieutenant colonel, as if he
had been selected for promotion in 1978. ECF No. 1-1 at 8.
Plaintiff cancelled his planned, involuntary retirement. ECF
No. 1 at 5.
after Plaintiff's promotion, the Air Force considered
Plaintiff for promotion from lieutenant colonel to colonel.
See ECF No. 1-1 at 61. However, the promotion board
did not promote Plaintiff. See Id. Plaintiff
maintains, as do individuals who wrote letters of support for
Plaintiff, that he could not have been competitive for a
promotion from lieutenant colonel to colonel so soon after
his record was corrected because he did not have an
opportunity to build a record of positive Officer
Effectiveness Reports (“OERs”) as a lieutenant
colonel. See ECF Nos. 1 at 5; 1-1 at 61, 63.
voluntarily retired on April 1, 1984, after completing more
than twenty years of service, making him eligible to receive
a pension. See ECF No. 1-2 at 5. Plaintiff asserts
that he “reluctantly” decided to retire and
“seek new opportunities” because he perceived
that further advancement in the Air Force was
“impossible.” ECF No. 1 at 6.
March 23, 2002, Plaintiff applied to the AFBCMR to correct
to reflect that he was continued on active duty until August
1991, which would have enabled him to obtain a 28-year Lt Col
career; or that he was directly promoted to the grade of
colonel and continued on active duty until August 1993, which
would have given him a full 30-year career.
ECF No. 1-2 at 9. The AFBCMR denied Plaintiff's request
on September 17, 2003. Id. Plaintiff did not include
the September 17, 2003 decision with the Complaint, nor any
other document indicating the reasoning behind the
February 20, 2004, Plaintiff sought reconsideration of the
September 2003 denial by the AFBCMR. ECF No. 1-2 at 10. On
February 27, 2004, the AFBCMR found that Plaintiff's
“evidence did not meet the criteria for
April 29, 2004, Plaintiff appealed to the Secretary of the
Air Force, who deferred the case to the AFBCMR, where
Plaintiff “was again advised that his request did not
meet the criteria for reconsideration.” ECF No. 1-2 at
September 6, 2005, Plaintiff requested reconsideration of his
appeal. ECF No. 1-2 at 10. On June 27, 2006, the AFBCMR
denied his request. Id.
January 12, 2008, Plaintiff again filed an application with
the AFBCMR, requesting that his military career “be
made whole.” ECF No. 1-2 at 10. However, on July 7,
2008, Plaintiff requested to administratively close the new
case, and the AFBCMR closed the case on August 19, 2008.
Id. at 5.
February 22, 2010, Plaintiff again sought relief from the
AFBCMR. ECF No. 1-2 at 10. The AFBCMR reviewed additional
documentation submitted by Plaintiff and concluded that the
documentation did not amount to new and relevant evidence
supporting reconsideration of the AFBCMR's decision or
justify reopening Plaintiff's case. Id. at 12.
Alongside that conclusion, the AFBCMR also determined that
OERs for Plaintiff that were entered between December 30,