Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Joachim Hagopian v. Major General William Knowlton, 470 F.2d 201, 2d Cir. (1972)
Joachim Hagopian v. Major General William Knowlton, 470 F.2d 201, 2d Cir. (1972)
2d 201
The Superintendent of the United State Military Academy at West Point (the
"Academy"), the Commandant of the Academy, and the Secretary of the Army
appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(a) from an order, 346 F.Supp. 29,
granting preliminary injunction restraining them from ordering Joachim
Hagopian, a former third-year cadet, to active duty and requiring them to
readmit him to the program of instruction and training at the Academy, which
for 170 years has been engaged, at government expense, in training volunteer
members of the military service in academic, military, character and physical
development with a view to their becoming career officers in the United States
Army.
Cadet Hagopian was separated from the Academy for deficiency in conduct
after receiving 107 demerits as of May 21, 1972, 5 demerits in excess of the
I.
4
At the outset we emphasize that we are not here being called upon to modify
the Academy's rigorous and exacting standards of discipline, behavior and
personal decorum for cadets, standards which have traditionally been
recognized as vital elements of a training program designed to develop the
mind, body and character of prospective career officers. The ultimate objective
of that training is to insure that when our country faces the all-important task of
defending itself, Academy graduates will provide military leadership under
stress, imbued with courage, a strong sense of duty, and a willingness to
subordinate personal self-interest to the overriding needs of their country. Such
important matters, which are part of the Army's conduct of military affairs and
the standards adopted by it to prepare men for military operations, should not
be interfered with by the judiciary. See Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 73
S.Ct. 534, 97 L.Ed. 842 (1953). Nor do we here seek to depart from that basic
principle. The narrow question before us relates to a different matter. The
Army's disciplinary standards are not here challenged. The question before us is
the narrow and limited one of what minimum procedural due process must be
accorded a cadet before he may be separated from the Academy.
Since the elements of due process are flexible, requiring consideration in each
case of a variety of circumstances, it is essential to have a full understanding of
the present operation of the disciplinary system at the Academy as it relates to
the separation of a cadet for deficiency in conduct of the type which formed the
basis of the Academy's decision in Hagopian's case. Preliminarily it should be
noted that the Academy's disciplinary system as a whole is characterized as
"correctional and educational in nature rather than being legalistic and
punitive."3 Its purpose is to teach the cadets "to be prepared to accept full
responsibility for all that they do or fail to do and to place loyalty to the service
above self-interest or loyalty to friends or associates."4 Toward these ends the
awards of demerits to cadets at the Academy serve a dual function. In the daily
educational context demerits are awarded so that cadets will be deterred from
committing infractions of the Academy's standards and, hence, will develop the
kind of discipline the Academy hopes to inculcate in future Army officers. In
the far less frequent context, however, the accumulation of demerits to the point
of conduct deficiency serves as a measure used to determine whether a cadet
should be expelled from the Academy.
The award of demerits for a Class III delinquency begins with a report by an
officer, civilian instructor, or another cadet,5 forwarded to the allegedly
delinquent cadet's Tactical Officer.6 The Tactical Officer may initiate the
delinquency report himself and did so here as to 7 offenses (out of a total of 16)
for which Hagopian received 46 demerits. The Tactical Officer notifies the
cadet of any report, and he may request an Explanation of Report or the cadet
may on his own submit one to contest the delinquency.7 The Tactical Officer
reviews reports (including his own) and explanations and takes final action on
all Class III offenses.8 The individual report form with a notation of the
demerits awarded is returned to the cadet and, in addition, a Weekly Cadet
Delinquency Report is posted each week to notify the cadet of his offenses for
the past week for which demerits were awarded, as well as to notify him of
cumulative totals for the month and for the demerit period.9
If a cadet wishes to appeal any demerit award listed, he must submit a request
for reconsideration to the Tactical Officer by 8:00 A.M. of the day following
the posting of the weekly report, and the award of demerits will be considered
by the next higher authority, the Regimental Commander.10 It is also possible
for the cadet to seek further review from the Superintendent of the Academy if
he feels he has been wronged,11 or to initiate a complaint, through his chain of
command, to the Inspector General.12 In the normal course, before a cadet
exceeds his demerit allowance, these latter avenues of appeal are likely to be
used only in rare instances.
II.
10
11
Hagopian was notified by letter dated May 31 that his deficiency in conduct
had been referred to the Academic Board for possible separation and that he
had the right to present written evidence not previously submitted. He availed
himself of this opportunity by a letter dated June 2, 1972, in which he did not
dispute his delinquencies but appealed for another chance because he now
realized his mistakes in "bucking the system." In his affidavit to the district
court Hagopian alleged that shortly after he was notified on June 7 that the
Board would be meeting the following day to consider his case he phoned the
Academy legal department seeking advice and was told by one of the attorneys
that they "were discouraged from counselling cadets who were called to appear
before conduct boards." Since Hagopian was not to appear before the
Academic Board, it is unclear whether the term "conduct boards" was meant to
include the Academic Board meeting to consider separation, or referred only to
boards convened to adjudicate demerit awards for Class I and II
delinquencies.21 1] In any event, no legal advice was given and Hagopian
confined his written efforts to the letter appealing for another chance,
presumably hoping that his promise to do better in the future might persuade
the Board members to find him to be a cadet "whose potential warranted
retention." It is undisputed, however, that if any of the demerit awards which
Hagopian challenged in his requests for reconsideration in May or the demerit
award he challenged for the first time in the district court22 had been set aside
by the Academic Board at its meeting, he would not have exceeded his
allowance for the demerit period and would, therefore, not have been subject to
separation for deficiency in conduct.
III.
12
Upon this appeal the district court's grant of preliminary relief could be
affirmed solely for failure to show any abuse of discretion on the part of the
district court, Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Safeway Properties, Inc., 307 F.2d 495,
500 (2d Cir. 1962); Dino De-Laurentiis Cinematografica, S.p.A. v. D-150, Inc.,
366 F.2d 373 (2d Cir. 1966), since the relative hardships of granting or
withholding relief tip decidedly in favor of Hagopian, who will suffer
irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction is vacated, and he has not only
raised issues presenting "a fair ground for litigation," Hamilton Watch Co. v.
Benrus Watch Co., 206 F.2d 738, 740 (2d Cir. 1953), but has demonstrated a
probability of success on the merits. Checker Motors Corp. v. Chrysler Corp.,
405 F.2d 319 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 999, 89 S.Ct. 1595, 22 L. Ed.2d
777 (1969). However, no material issues of fact appear and the parties seemed
to agree upon the argument of the appeal that the dispute centers on the
sufficiency, as a matter of law, of the Academy's procedures. Thus, despite the
absence of an agreement to consolidate trial on the merits with the hearing of
14
"Whether
the Constitution requires that a particular right obtain in a specific
proceeding depends upon a complexity of factors. The nature of the alleged right
involved, the nature of the proceeding, and the possible burden on that proceeding,
are all considerations which must be taken into account." Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.
S. 420, 442, 80 S.Ct. 1502, 1515, 4 L. Ed.2d 1307 (1960).
15
McGinnis, 442 F.2d 178, 196 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied Oswald v. Sostre, 405
U.S. 978, 92 S.Ct. 1190, 31 L.Ed.2d 254 (1972). The factors involved in
expulsion from a government-service academy also differ substantially from
those found significant in proceedings to challenge the standards of due process
required for termination of welfare payments, Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254,
90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1967); or of tenancy in public housing, Escalera
v. New York City Housing Authority, 425 F.2d 853 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 400
U. S. 853, 91 S.Ct. 54, 27 L.Ed.2d 91 (1970).
16
At first blush separation of a cadet from the Academy appears similar to the
involuntary activation of a ready reservist for failure to perform satisfactorily in
the reserve, for which no hearing is required. See O'Mara v. Zebrowski, 447
F.2d 1085 (3d Cir. 1971); Antonuk v. United States, 445 F.2d 592 (6th Cir.
1971); Ansted v. Resor, 437 F.2d 1020 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 827, 92
S.Ct. 61, 30 L.Ed.2d 56 (1971). In both cases the immediate consequenceassignment to active duty-is the same. However, a closer study discloses a vast
difference in the sanctions ultimately to be applied. Although a ready reservist
may, without hearing, be ordered to active duty upon a determination by his
commanding officer, within his statutory discretion, that the reservist has not
participated satisfactorily in the reserve program (e. g., for failure to attend drill
sessions)24 the consequence is limited primarily to changing the form of service
required to satisfy his voluntarily assumed military obligation from reserve to
active. While it is true that such a reservist could be ordered to active duty even
if his total period of enlistment would be extended thereby, see Fox v. Brown,
402 F.2d 837, 841 (2d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1114, 89 S.Ct. 1007,
22 L.Ed.2d 120 (1969), any extension which might possibly occur is still
confined at most to the amount of time necessary for the reservist to serve a
total of 24 months on active status. 10 U.S.C. Sec. 673a(b) (1972 Supp.). The
Academy cadet, on the other hand, faces the far more severe sanctions of being
expelled from a course of college instruction which he has pursued with a view
to becoming a career officer and of probably being forever denied that career.
17
Because of the factors controlling what process is due usually vary from case to
case, prior decisions on the subject cannot ordinarily furnish more than general
guidelines which might give the reader a "feel" for what is fundamentally fair
in a particular instance. In this case, however, we have the unusual benefit and
guidance of a decision of this Court in Wasson v. Trowbridge, 382 F. 2d 807
(2d Cir. 1967), which dealt with the requirements of procedural due process in a
factual context that is strikingly similar to the one with which we are now
faced. Wasson was a third-year student at the Merchant Marine Academy at
Kings Point, New York, whose dismissal, after a hearing at which he was
allowed to appear, was recommended by the Senior Board of Aptitude,
considered. The hearing may be procedurally informal and need not be adversarial.
20. . The requirement of counsel as an ingredient of fairness is a function of all of the
".
other aspects of the hearing. Where the proceeding is non-criminal in nature, where
the hearing is investigative and not adversarial and the government does not proceed
through counsel, where the individual concerned is mature and educated, where his
knowledge of the events . . . should enable him to develop the facts adequately
through available sources, and where the other aspects of the hearing taken as a
whole are fair, due process does not require representation by counsel." 382 F.2d at
812 (emphasis supplied).
21
22
We view the award of demerits for each Class III delinquency not as the
conduct of a military operation exempt from interference but as part of the daily
operation of the Academy's disciplinary system in which the Tactical Officer is
responsible for instilling disciplined conduct in the cadets he supervises in a
manner similar to the responsibilities of public school teachers to educate their
students. Of course the student voluntarily at a military academy must be
prepared to subordinate his private interests to the proper functioning of the
educational institution he attends to a greater degree than the student at a
civilian public school. However, although the Tactical Officer must decide
whether demerits are to be awarded, he is not an adversary of the cadet but an
educator who shares an identity of interest with the cadet, whom he counsels
from time to time as a future leader. See e. g., Menechino v. Oswald, 430 F.2d
403 (2d Cir. 1970). Furthermore, the individual award of demerits invokes at
most the relatively minor immediate consequence of disciplinary punishments
or withdrawal of weekend or other privileges.26 We have found more serious
sanctions, such as a 15-day suspension from class, still not sufficient to
necessitate a hearing. Farrell v. Joel, 437 F.2d 160 (2d Cir. 1971). Not until the
cadet accumulates a total of demerits in excess of that allowed for the entire
five-month period is he subject to expulsion.
23
The demands of due process, however, are greater when the accumulation of
demerits subjects the cadet to the severe sanction of expulsion rather than a
form of milder discipline, see Farrell v. Joel, supra, 437 F.2d at 162. Cf. Opp
Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Administrator, 312 U.S. 126, 152-153, 657, 61 S. Ct. 524,
536, 85 L.Ed. 624 (1941) ("The demands of due process do not require a
hearing, at the initial stage or at any particular point or at more than one point
in an administrative proceeding so long as the requisite hearing is held before
the final order becomes effective.") Although the Court in Wasson declined to
apply automatically the hearing requirements set forth in Dixon v. Alabama
State Bd. of Educ., 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 930, 82 S.Ct.
368, 7 L.Ed.2d 193 (1961) (expulsion of a civilian student for misconduct from
a tax-supported college) to the expulsion of a cadet from a military service
academy, it did make plain that a fair hearing would be required at some point
before a cadet could be separated. Appellants maintain that "holding a full
hearing on accumulated demerits for fifteen minor infractions would be nothing
more than a meaningless litany." We disagree. The Academic Board has two
functions when it is convened to consider separation. First it must determine
whether the cadet in question has accumulated an excessive amount of validly
awarded demerits over the course of the demerit period. If so, it must then
determine whether the cadet's "potential warrants retention," so as to allow
probation rather than separation. Since the demerit period roughly coincides
with the relatively short duration of a college semester, the opportunity to
appear and contest the factual basis of demerits previously awarded without a
hearing would not be lost to the memory of either the cadet or available
witnesses. Perhaps more importantly, with respect to certain of the demerit
awards and especially with respect to the subjective evaluation of the cadet's
potential, the opportunity to personally appear and present his case may affect
considerably the credibility which the members of the Academic Board attach
to the cadet's appeal. With a cadet population of several thousand, it is unlikely
that the members of the Board, drawn from several departments, would have a
sufficient acquaintanceship with the cadet to be able to appraise him or
determine his "potential for retention" merely on the basis of his letter to it. The
opportunity to bring witnesses to appear in his behalf may also strengthen the
impact of his case above the frail impression which a written submission would
make. "Particularly where credibility and veracity are at issue, . . . written
submissions are a wholly unsatisfactory basis for decision", Goldberg v. Kelly,
397 U.S. 254, 269, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 1021, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970).
25
26
27
The foregoing is intended merely to convey, for the guidance of the Academy,
the rudiments of due process required for disciplinary proceedings. It will be
for the Academy within this rough framework to determine the precise
procedures to be employed. In the meantime the judgment of the district court
is affirmed.
Id
Disciplinary SOP Sec. 14e. He refers Class I and II offenses for appropriate
board action
10
Id. Sec. 20
11
12
13
14
Id
15
16
17
18
Id. 3.06
19
20
21
22
Cadet Hagopian received 5 demerits each for being in need of a haircut on both
the 25th and 26th of April. He raised the objection below that he did not have
the opportunity to rectify the cause of the first delinquency before it resulted in
a second demerit award, although he had not raised this objection prior to his
separation
23
24
See Winters v. United States, 281 F. Supp. 289 (E.D.N.Y.), affd., 390 F.2d 879
(2d Cir. 1968); Fox v. Brown, 402 F.2d 837 (2d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393
U.S. 1114, 89 S.Ct. 1007, 22 L.Ed.2d 120 (1969). See also Raderman v. Kaine,
411 F.2d 1102 (2d Cir.), petition for cert. dismissed, 396 U.S. 976, 90 S.Ct.
467, 24 L.Ed.2d 447 (1969). Compare United States ex rel. Schonbrun v.
Commanding Officer, 403 F.2d 371 (2d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 929,
89 S.Ct. 1195, 22 L.Ed.2d 460 (1969) (reservist activated with unit denied
judicial review of rejection of his claim for hardship exemption)
25
27
Upon oral argument counsel for the Government advised that expulsion
hearings number approximately 8 per year