Roelofs v. Secretary of the Air Force

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 1980 · Administrative Law

628 F.2d 594 (1980)

Updated July 31, 2026

administrative lawmilitary dischargeAdministrative Procedure ActAPA5 U.S.C. § 555(e)military recordsdischarge characterizationcivilian conviction

Facts

Roelofs pleaded guilty in federal court to possessing approximately three grams of heroin with intent to distribute and received a sentence that was partially suspended so he could complete his military service. The Air Force initiated discharge proceedings under AFM 39-12, § C, and a board of officers recommended an undesirable discharge because of his civilian conviction. He was discharged, later persuaded the DRB to upgrade his discharge to general, and then sought an honorable discharge from the BCMR. Both the DRB and BCMR denied an honorable discharge without findings or reasons.

Issue

Whether the Air Force lacked statutory or constitutional authority to use a regulation that presumes a less than honorable discharge for a servicemember discharged because of a civilian conviction for a serious offense, and whether the Air Force boards were required by the Administrative Procedure Act to give reasons for denying Roelofs an honorable discharge.

Rule

The Air Force may validly discharge a servicemember for a civilian conviction corresponding to an offense punishable by more than one year if tried by court-martial, and it may reasonably presume that such a discharge will ordinarily be less than honorable, while allowing case-specific consideration for a general or honorable discharge. When a written application or request made in connection with agency proceedings is denied, 5 U.S.C. § 555(e) requires prompt notice accompanied by a brief statement of the grounds for denial unless the denial is self-explanatory or merely affirms a prior denial whose stated grounds still fully inform the applicant.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In San Antonio, former Army sergeant Nina Patel filed a written petition with the Army correction board seeking to upgrade her general discharge to honorable. The board denied the request in a one-sentence letter that simply said her application was denied, and the government later supplied detailed reasons in district court.

If Nina challenges the denial under the Administrative Procedure Act, which is the best result?

Explanation. APA § 555(e) applies when a written request made in connection with agency proceedings is denied, even if the relief sought is discretionary rather than an entitlement. Military correction and discharge review boards are not courts-martial or military commissions, so they are not excluded on that basis. The agency must give prompt notice with a brief statement of grounds unless the denial is self-explanatory or merely affirms a prior denial whose stated grounds still fully inform the applicant. Post hoc explanations by government counsel do not satisfy that requirement.