Cesar R. Vazquez Torres v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CESAR R. VAZQUEZ TORRES,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1591
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:23-cv-00085-SSS, Judge Stephen S. Schwartz.
______________________
Decided: October 11, 2024
______________________
CESAR R. VAZQUEZ T ORRES , San Juan, PR, pro se.
MATTHEW P AUL R OCHE, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA B URKE, P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY .
______________________
Before D YK, HUGHES , and CUNNINGHAM , Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-1591 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 10/11/2024

-- 1 of 6 --

VAZQUEZ TORRES v. US 2
P ER CURIAM .
Cesar R. Vazquez Torres, proceeding pro se, appeals a
decision of the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”)
granting in part the government’s motion for judgment on
the administrative record. The Army Board for Correction
of Military Records (“ABCMR”) found that Mr. Vazquez
Torres was not entitled to medical retirement with disabil-
ity pay that he claimed. Because the ABCMR decision was
supported by substantial evidence, and the Claims Court
committed no error in granting judgment on the adminis-
trative record, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Vazquez Torres enlisted in the Puerto Rico Army
National Guard on October 3, 2011. S.A. 30.1 On October
25, 2011, he reported for active duty training in Fort Leon-
ard Wood, Missouri. Id. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Vazquez
Torres was hospitalized due to suicidal ideation. S.A. 63.
He “report[ed] seeing something like shadows and [was
not] sure if they [were] really there.” Id. He presented with
a depressed mood and dysphoric affect. Id. On November
10, 2011, he was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder
with mixed anxious and depressed mood. S.A. 35.
On November 15, 2011, an Entrance Physical Stand-
ards Board (“EPSBD”) found that Mr. Vazquez Torres had
a history of anxiety and depressive symptoms” that existed
prior to service. S.A. 35. The EPSBD found that if the con-
ditions had been “detected at the time of enlistment date,
the[y] would have prevented enlistment in the military.”
S.A. 78. The EPSBD recommended that Mr. Vazquez
Torres “be immediately removed from all training and
physical training” and that “[h]e should be expeditiously
1 We refer to the supplemental appendix filed with
the government’s informal response brief as “S.A.”
throughout this opinion.
Case: 24-1591 Document: 27 Page: 2 Filed: 10/11/2024

-- 2 of 6 --

VAZQUEZ TORRES v. US 3
separated from active duty as a result of not meeting the
requirements of AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness),
chapter 2-27, and in accordance with paragraph 5-11 of AR
635-200 [(Personnel Separations)].” S.A. 35–36. On No-
vember 28, 2011, Mr. Vazquez Torres “acknowledged that
he was informed of the medical findings” and “concurred
with the proceedings and requested to be discharged from
the Army without delay.” S.A. 32. Mr. Vazquez Torres re-
ceived an “uncharacterized” discharge from active duty on
December 5, 2011. S.A. 36.
In 2013, Mr. Vazquez Torres sought relief at the Army
Discharge Review Board, arguing for an “upgrade of the
characterization of his discharge and [a] change to the nar-
rative reason for his discharge,” so that he would receive
medical retirement. S.A. 456. His request was denied.
S.A. 457. He then sought relief at the ABCMR, but in 2017,
2019, and 2021, the ABCMR denied his requests. In 2021,
the ABCMR concluded “relief was not warranted[,]” that
his “medically unfit condition [was] not aggravated by his
military service[,]” and that his service was properly rated
as “uncharacterized.” S.A. 38. He brought suit in the
Claims Court seeking medical retirement, backpay from
his date of discharge, and a promotion, arguing that the
2021 ABCMR decision was not supported by substantial
evidence and was otherwise erroneous.
The Claims Court found that the ABCMR’s decision to
deny Mr. Vazquez Torres’s request for medical retirement
was supported by substantial evidence. S.A. 6. Further-
more, the Claims Court found any procedural error regard-
ing whether Mr. Vazquez Torres should have received the
benefit of a Medical Evaluation Board (“MEB”) was harm-
less because the ABCMR decision considered the same ev-
idence as would have been considered by an MEB. S.A. 7.
Mr. Vazquez Torres voluntarily dismissed his remaining
claims. S.A. 2.
Case: 24-1591 Document: 27 Page: 3 Filed: 10/11/2024

-- 3 of 6 --

VAZQUEZ TORRES v. US 4
This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
“We review a decision of the Claims Court ‘granting or
denying a motion for judgment on the administrative rec-
ord without deference.’” Bader v. United States, 97 F.4th
904, 909 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (quoting Barnick v. United States,
591 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2020)). We apply the same
standard of review as the Claims Court, and relief from a
Correction Board’s decision will not be granted unless it is
shown “by cogent and clearly convincing evidence that the
[C]orrection [B]oard acted arbitrarily, capriciously, con-
trary to law, or that its determination was unsupported by
substantial evidence.” Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d
1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
On appeal, Mr. Vazquez Torres argues that he should
have been granted medical retirement by the Army in
2011, entitling him to monetary relief. We agree with the
Claims Court that the decision of the ABCMR was sup-
ported by substantial evidence. In 2021, the ABCMR thor-
oughly considered the evidence of record, including
previous ABCMR findings, the determinations of the Army
Discharge Review Board, and the medical advisory find-
ings of an ABCMR Behavioral Health Advisor asked to re-
view the case. S.A. 34–38. Specifically, Mr. Vazquez
Torres was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with
mixed anxious and depressed mood just over two weeks af-
ter he reported for active duty. S.A. 30. The ABCMR re-
viewed his evaluation by the EPSBD and found “[t]here
was compelling evidence to support a finding that he had a
preexisting condition.” S.A. 33. The ABCMR had earlier
found that “the manifestation of a chronic disease from the
date of entry into active military service (or so close to that
date of entry that the disease could not have started in so
short a period) was accepted as proof the disease existed
prior to entrance into active military service.” S.A. 32–33.
Case: 24-1591 Document: 27 Page: 4 Filed: 10/11/2024

-- 4 of 6 --

VAZQUEZ TORRES v. US 5
On this record, the ABCMR’s decision is not arbitrary, ca-
pricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary
to law.
Mr. Vazquez Torres also contends that he should have
been referred to an MEB because he was found not to meet
both procurement standards and retention standards and
the MEB is the “only board authorized for duty related
medical conditions that have been found to NOT meet med-
ical retention standards[.]” Appellant’s Inf. Br. 7 (empha-
sis in original). He contends that the failure of the EPSBD
to refer him to a MEB makes any finding about his fitness
arbitrary and capricious, a violation of army regulations,
and a violation of his due process rights. Specifically, Mr.
Vazquez Torres contends that the Army violated Army
Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) when it
failed to refer him to a MEB or a Physical Evaluation Board
(“PEB”). Appellant’s Inf. Br. 8–9. Even assuming that Mr.
Vazquez Torres’s interpretation of the regulations is cor-
rect, his factual premise is not. There was no finding that
he failed to meet the retention standards.
The EPSBD had the authority to process Mr. Vazquez
Torres because of his failure to meet the procurement
standards. Mr. Vazquez Torres was referred to an EPSBD
upon the discovery of a medical condition, within his first
180 days of active duty, that would have precluded his en-
listment in the military.
Finally, to the extent that Mr. Vazquez Torres argues
that his award of service-connected disability benefits from
the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) compels a dif-
ferent result here, the ABCMR is not bound by the findings
of the VA. See Hinkle v. United States, 229 Ct. Cl. 801,
804–05 (Ct. Cl. 1982) (“Nor is the court or the [agency]
bound by this decision of the Veterans Administration
which operates under different laws and standards and for
different purposes than the military when it comes to de-
ciding disability entitlements.”).
Case: 24-1591 Document: 27 Page: 5 Filed: 10/11/2024

-- 5 of 6 --

VAZQUEZ TORRES v. US 6
We have considered Mr. Vazquez Torres’s remaining
arguments and found them unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1591 Document: 27 Page: 6 Filed: 10/11/2024

-- 6 of 6 --