Craig Johnson, Jr. v. United States

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CRAIG JOHNSON, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2022-1399
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:19-cv-00904-ZNS, Judge Zachary N. Somers.
______________________
Decided: August 3, 2023
______________________
WILLIAM CASSARA , I, Cassara Law Office, Evans, GA,
argued for plaintiff-appellant.
J OSHUA A. MANDLEBAUM , Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also
represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY , D OUGLAS K. MICKLE.
______________________
Before L OURIE, H UGHES , and STARK, Circuit Judges.
HUGHES , Circuit Judge.
Case: 22-1399 Document: 44 Page: 1 Filed: 08/03/2023

-- 1 of 16 --

JOHNSON v. US 2
Craig Johnson, Jr. appeals a decision from the United
States Court of Federal Claims granting judgment on the
administrative record. Because Mr. Johnson was not enti-
tled to additional notice and a separation board prior to his
transfer out of the Active Reserve Program and into the In-
dividual Ready Reserve, we affirm.
I
This case involves a complex network of military poli-
cies and orders that were promulgated to help our armed
forces run effectively and efficiently. To understand
whether Mr. Johnson was afforded the proper procedural
safeguards under these authorities, we must first step back
and examine the statutory and regulatory framework in
which they fit.
A
Title 10 is the portion of the United States Code that
establishes the United States Armed Forces. It is divided
into five subtitles, and Subtitle E provides an overview of
the “Reserve Components.” 10 U.S.C. Subtitle E (§§ 10001–
18506). Each regular component of the armed forces has a
corresponding reserve component. See id. § 101(c). The
stated purpose of the reserve components is:
to provide trained units and qualified persons
available for active duty in the armed forces, in
time of war or national emergency, and at such
other times as the national security may require, to
fill the needs of the armed forces whenever more
units and persons are needed than are in the regu-
lar components.
Id. § 10102. Relevant here is the Marine Corps Reserve,
which is “organized, administered, trained, and supplied
under the direction of the Commandant of the Marine
Corps.” Id. § 10109.
Case: 22-1399 Document: 44 Page: 2 Filed: 08/03/2023

-- 2 of 16 --

JOHNSON v. US 3
Chapter 1209 of Title 10 outlines various ways in which
reserve members can be ordered to active duty. One section
in this chapter, § 12310, allows the Secretary to:
order a member of a reserve component under the
Secretary’s jurisdiction to active duty pursuant to
section 12301(d) . . . to perform Active Guard and
Reserve [(AGR)] duty organizing, administering,
recruiting, instructing, or training the reserve com-
ponents.
Id. § 12310(a). Similarly, § 10211 dictates that “each
armed force shall have officers of its reserve components
. . . to participate in preparing and administering the poli-
cies and regulations affecting those reserve components.”
Id. § 10211.
To fill the AGR positions in the Marine Corps Full-
Time Support (FTS) program, the Department of the Navy
created the “Active Reserve (AR) Program,” outlined in an
order from the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Marine
Corps Order (MCO) 1001.52J, “Active Reserve (AR) Sup-
port to the United States Marine Corps Reserve,” June 6,
2011.1 Order 1001.52J establishes the AR Program as a
subset of the Marine Corps Reserve to maintain “a cadre of
well-trained and experienced full-time [reserve component]
Marines in order to facilitate the integration of the Total
Force and assist the Active Component (AC).” MCO
1001.52J at 2. The Order provides that reserve marines
who are a part of the AR Program perform the following
tasks:
1 The June 2011 version of Marine Corps Order
1001.52J was the version provided in the Joint Appendix
and was the active version during the relevant period for
this appeal. That version of the order is available at J.A.
584–623. On February 15, 2019, it was cancelled and up-
dated by Marine Corps Order 1001.52K.
Case: 22-1399 Document: 44 Page: 3 Filed: 08/03/2023

-- 3 of 16 --

JOHNSON v. US 4
(1) organizing, preparing and administering poli-
cies and regulations affecting the [United States
Marine Corps Reserve]; (2) training and instruct-
ing the [United States Marine Corps Reserve]; (3)
recruiting and retention for the [United States Ma-
rine Corps Reserve]; and (4) administration of
[United States Marine Corps Reserve] personnel.
Id.
Attached to Order 1001.52J is the AR Program Policy
Manual. Id.; see also id. at 1-1. The AR Program Policy
Manual explains that “a Marine who has successfully reen-
listed for a second tour on the AR Program” is a “Career
Designated Marine.” Id. at 3-13. Although “[a] standard
tour of duty at each location is considered 36 months,” the
Policy Manual states that “Career Marines having 12
months or more remaining until their [end of active service
date] may also receive [permanent change of station] Or-
ders.” Id. at 3-5.
B
This case concerns what happens when a Career En-
listed Marine with more than 12 months remaining until
their end of active service date refuses permanent change
of station (PCS) orders that would require extending their
active service. The Policy Manual itself does not provide
specific guidance on this point. However, the Policy Man-
ual does not purport to be the sole authority on the AR Pro-
gram and instead points us to other authorities that detail
the proper procedures.
First, for example, the Policy Manual refers the reader
to a different order, Marine Corps Order P1300.8R, for
“general assignment guidance.” Id. (citing “reference (n)”);
see also id. at 1 (identifying reference (n) as Marine Corps
Order P1300.8R). Marine Corps Order P1300.8R explains
what happens in a situation where a Career Enlisted Ma-
rine receives PCS orders that extend beyond their original
Case: 22-1399 Document: 44 Page: 4 Filed: 08/03/2023

-- 4 of 16 --

JOHNSON v. US 5
end of active service (EAS) date. Specifically, this order ex-
plains that a Marine in that situation has two options, ei-
ther (1) “extend/reenlist in order to have the required
active service,” or (2) if they do not wish to “extend/reenlist
in order to qualify for assignment[,] [they must] sign [a]
page 11 SRP entry.” Marine Corps Order P1300.8R
¶ 1102.2
Second, the Policy Manual elsewhere refers to the Ma-
rine Administrative Message as a source regarding the AR
Enlisted Career Force. MCO 1001.52J at 3-4, 3-17. The Ma-
rine Administrative Message explains that “Career Desig-
nated Marines who refuse to reenlist or extend in order to
execute PCS [orders] will be released from the AR Program
at the effective date of the orders, or EAS, whichever is ear-
lier, with an RE-3O enlistment code.” Marine Administra-
tive Message 552/12.
Third, the Policy Manual cites to the then-active ver-
sion of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Man-
ual: Marine Corps Order P1900.16F (Separation Manual).
2 Marine Corps Order P1300.8R was not provided in
the Joint Appendix, but ¶ 1102 was quoted by the Court of
Federal Claims at J.A. 6. Further, the Board cited to the
October 4, 1994 version of Marine Corps Order P1300.8R
at J.A. 558. Thus, for the portions cited herein, this court
takes judicial notice of the October 4, 1994 version of Ma-
rine Corps Order P1300.8R, which is a government docu-
ment and is publicly accessible at MCO P1300.8R W CH 1-
8.pdf (SECURED) (marines.mil). See, e.g., Mobility Workx,
LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, 15 F.4th 1146, 1151 (Fed. Cir.
2021) (holding that this court can take judicial notice of
publicly accessible government documents because they
“are capable of being accurately and readily determined
from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be ques-
tioned,” as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b))
(cleaned up).
Case: 22-1399 Document: 44 Page: 5 Filed: 08/03/2023

-- 5 of 16 --

JOHNSON v. US 6
Id. at 1, 3-2, 3-14, 3-17. The Separation Manual provides
procedures for separating Marines under different circum-
stances. Marine Corps Order P1900.16F at 1-3.3 It defines
“separation” as
[a] general term which includes dismissal, drop-
ping from the rolls, revocation of an appointment
or commission, termination of an appointment, re-
lease from active duty, release from custody and
control of the Marine Corps, or transfer from active
duty to the: [Individual Ready Reserve (IRR)], Fleet
Marine Corps Reserve, Retired List, Temporary or
Permanent Disability Retired List, or Retired Re-
serve and similar changes in an active or reserve
status.
Separation Manual at 1-8 (emphasis added). Discharge, on
the other hand, is defined as, “[c]omplete severance from
3 Not all portions of the Separation Manual cited in
this opinion were included in the excerpts of the Separation
Manual provided to the court in the Joint Appendix. How-
ever, the record before the Court of Federal Claims in-
cludes more excerpts from the Separation Manual and uses
the June 6, 2007 version. Johnson v. United States, No.
1:19-cv-00904-ZNS, D.I. 39-1 (Fed. Cl. 2021). Most, but not
all, Separation Manual citations herein can be found in the
longer excerpted version. Id. However, for citations that
cannot be found even in the longer excerpt, this court takes
judicial notice of the version of Marine Corps Order
P1900.16F dated June 6, 2007, which is a government doc-
ument and is publicly accessible at https://www.us-
mcu.edu/Portals/218/CEME/courses/MCO%20P1900.16F
%20with%20CH%201%20and%202%20SEPSMAN.pdf?ver
=2018-09-24-142242-170. See, e.g., Mobility Workx, 15
F.4th at 1151; see also supra n.2.
Case: 22-1399 Document: 44 Page: 6 Filed: 08/03/2023

-- 6 of 16 --

JOHNSON v. US 7
all military status gained by appointment, enlistment, or
induction.” Id. at 1-5.
Under ¶ 1005(3) of the Separation Manual, “Marines
separated before their expiration of enlistment will be
transferred to the IRR subject to the guidance in para-
graphs 6311.3 and 6401.5.” Id. at 1-15. Paragraph 6311.3
sets forth basic notification requirements for when a ma-
rine is transferred to the IRR, rather than discharged. Id.
at 6-58. Paragraph 6401.5 explains when transfer to the
IRR, rather than discharge, is appropriate, and it directs
the separation authority to “use the procedures in chapter
1 when transferring Marines to the IRR.” Id. at 6-86. Chap-
ter 1 provides “general instructions on separations,” in-
cluding guidance for preparing a marine’s separation forms
and assigning the marine a reenlistment code. Id. at 1-42.
It directs the reader to Appendix I, which is a list of reen-
listment codes and their corresponding meanings. Appen-
dix I describes the reenlistment code at issue here, RE-3O,
as being assigned when a marine “[r]efuse[s] to extend or
reenlist to obtain the obligated service necessary to carry
out PCS or UDP.” Id. at I-3. It further explains that the
RE-3O enlistment code makes the reservist ineligible for
future promotions, such as a promotion to warrant officer.
Id.
C
Mr. Johnson is a Career Designated Marine as defined
in the Policy Manual. He first enlisted as a reservist in the
Marine Corps Reserve in 1999, and in 2006 he extended his
enlistment for 23 months to affiliate with the AR Program.
After his end of active service date in 2008, Mr. Johnson
reenlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve as a member of the
AR Program for another three years. In 2011, he reenlisted
as a member of the AR Program again, this time for four
years. After reenlisting in 2011, his then-scheduled end of
active service date became November 9, 2015.
Case: 22-1399 Document: 44 Page: 7 Filed: 08/03/2023

-- 7 of 16 --

JOHNSON v. US 8
In March 2013, the Marine Corps issued PCS orders for
Mr. Johnson to relocate from Virginia Beach to Phoenix to
serve as a recruiter in the AR Program for 36 months. His
report date for his new station was June 9, 2013, at which
point Mr. Johnson would only have 29 months left on his
reserve contract. After receiving his PCS orders, Mr. John-
son tried to have his orders changed to stay closer to home
because of personal hardship. After he was unsuccessful in
that attempt, Mr. Johnson chose not to comply with his or-
ders and stayed in Virginia Beach.
In making this decision not to comply with his orders,
Mr. Johnson was counseled by his Sergeant Major that de-
clining to execute his PCS orders would result in adminis-
trative consequences. This discussion was memorialized in
the following email from his Sergeant Major to his Master
Sergeant:
SSgt Johnson has elected not to execute his
orders. I have spoken to him and he knows the
outcome of his decision. . . . [His] reasoning is
that it would create a hardship for his family.
I have tried to get him to use sound judgment
in his decision making, but unfortunately he
came to this conclusion.
J.A. 136.
On June 11, 2013, after failing to execute his PCS or-
ders, Mr. Johnson signed the following Administrative Re-
marks form (a “page 11”), which was entered into his
service record:
I have been assigned reenlistment eligibility
code RE-3O. Reason: I will not reenlist/extend
to comply with PCS orders. I have been ad-
vised that Marines assigned this code are not
eligible for promotion, reenlistment, commis-
sioning or warrant officer programs, special
education programs or involuntary
Case: 22-1399 Document: 44 Page: 8 Filed: 08/03/2023

-- 8 of 16 --

JOHNSON v. US 9
separation pay unless specifically authorized
by the [Commandant of the Marine Corps]. I
have been given the opportunity to submit a
statement and that statement if submitted,
will be filed on the document side of my [Ser-
vice Record Book].
J.A. 82 (emphasis added).
On June 30, 2013, Mr. Johnson was transferred out of
the AR Program and into a different component of the Ma-
rine Corps Reserve: the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR).
He was also issued a DD Form 214 (certificate of discharge
or release from active duty) reflecting the RE-3O code re-
garding his re-enlistment eligibility.
A few months later, on September 23, 2013, the Marine
Corps Reserve mobilized Mr. Johnson from the IRR back to
the AR Program, and he was stationed in Quantico, Vir-
ginia. J.A. 3. On December 13, 2013, Mr. Johnson was pre-
liminarily approved for appointment to warrant officer, but
he was notified on January 14, 2014 that his appointment
would be delayed due to the RE-3O code in his record. J.A.
547–48. In 2016, Mr. Johnson reenlisted in the Marine
Corps Reserve for two years.
D
On January 18, 2017, Mr. Johnson petitioned the
Board of Naval Corrections to remove the assigned RE-3O
reentry code and grant his appointment to warrant officer.
This petition was denied, and his request for the Board to
reconsider was also denied. On June 20, 2019, Mr. Johnson
filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims alleging wrongful
discharge and denial of military pay. On November 2, 2019,
the Court of Federal Claims remanded the case back to the
Board for issues not relevant to this appeal.
On July 29, 2020, the Board issued its decision on re-
mand, reasoning that Mr. Johnson’s separation and trans-
fer were not the same as the type of separation that results
Case: 22-1399 Document: 44 Page: 9 Filed: 08/03/2023

-- 9 of 16 --

JOHNSON v. US 10
in termination of employment, and thus his situation did
not “fall under the purview of the [Separation Manual]
chapter regarding total separation (or firing) from service.”
J.A. 532. It found that Mr. Johnson’s separation did not
qualify as an early separation from service because his con-
tract was for four years of service in the Marine Corps Re-
serve, not a contract to remain in the AR Program element
of the Reserve for four years. By being transferred to the
IRR, he remained part of the service.
After the Board’s decision on remand, both parties filed
motions for judgment on the administrative record. The
Court of Federal Claims granted the government’s motion
on October 28, 2021. The court reasoned that Mr. Johnson
was properly separated and transferred to the IRR pursu-
ant to the authority in Marine Corps Order P1300.8R
¶ 1102, Marine Administrative Message 552/12, and Ma-
rine Corps Separation Manual 1005 ¶ 3. The court further
concluded that Mr. Johnson’s transfer to the IRR did not
entitle him to additional procedural benefits in Chapter 6
of the Separation Manual, including greater notice and a
separation board. Mr. Johnson filed a motion to alter or
amend judgment, which was denied on December 9, 2021.
Mr. Johnson appeals.
II
We have jurisdiction to review Mr. Johnson’s appeal
under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). We review the grant of a mo-
tion for judgment on the administrative record de novo.
Barnes v. United States, 473 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir.
2007). We do “not disturb the decision of the corrections
board unless it is arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, or
unsupported by substantial evidence.” Chambers v. United
States, 417 F.3d 1218, 1227 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The trial
court’s legal conclusions are not reversed unless incorrect
as a matter of law, and factual findings are not disturbed
unless clearly erroneous. Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d
1153, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Issues of statutory or
Case: 22-1399 Document: 44 Page: 10 Filed: 08/03/2023

-- 10 of 16 --

JOHNSON v. US 11
regulatory interpretation are reviewed de novo. Strickland
v. United States, 423 F.3d 1335, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
III
Mr. Johnson’s appeal raises a single issue: whether he
was entitled to greater notice and a separation board prior
to his release from the AR Program and transfer to the IRR.
We hold that he was not entitled to these additional proce-
dures and thus affirm.
Mr. Johnson was properly released from the AR Pro-
gram and transferred to the IRR pursuant to the proce-
dures set forth in the AR Program Policy Manual, Marine
Corps Order 1300.8R ¶ 1102, Marine Administrative Mes-
sage 552/12, and Marine Corps Separation Manual 1005
¶ 3. There is no dispute Mr. Johnson qualifies as a Career
Designated Marine under the AR Program Policy Manual,
Order 1001.52J at 3-13, nor do the parties dispute that he
was properly given PCS orders to relocate to Phoenix in
June 2013. Id. at 3-5.
Mr. Johnson’s refusal to accept those PCS orders and
relocate to Phoenix properly triggered the procedures set
forth in Marine Corps Order 1300.8R ¶ 1102, Marine Ad-
ministrative Message 552/12, and Marine Corps Separa-
tion Manual 1005 ¶ 3. These orders and regulations apply
to this exact scenario, and none of them require greater no-
tice or a separation board prior to this type of separation.
Instead, they dictate that a Career enlisted Marine who re-
fuses PCS orders will not be discharged, but rather will be
separated from the AR Program and transferred to the IRR
with a page 11 notice and an RE-3O reenlistment code. See
Marine Corps Order 1300.8R ¶ 1102 (“Career enlisted Ma-
rines who do not extend/reenlist in order to qualify for as-
signment will sign [a] page 11 SRB entry [that includes an
RE-3O reenlistment code].”); Marine Administrative Mes-
sage 552/12 (“Career designated Marines who refuse to
reenlist or extend in order to execute PCSO will be released
from the AR Program at the effective date of the orders, or
Case: 22-1399 Document: 44 Page: 11 Filed: 08/03/2023

-- 11 of 16 --

JOHNSON v. US 12
EAS, whichever is earlier, with an RE-3O reenlistment
code.”); Separation Manual 1005 ¶ 3 (“Marines separated
before their expiration of enlistment will be transferred to
the IRR subject to the guidance in paragraphs 6311.3 and
6401.5.”).
This is the same procedure Mr. Johnson was afforded
here. After refusing his PCS orders, he was given a page 11
form to sign and was transferred to the IRR with an RE-
3O reenlistment code. He was not discharged because he
was not “complete[ly] sever[ed] from all military status.”
Separation Manual at 1-5. Rather, consistent with para-
graphs 6311.3 and 6401.5 of the Separation Manual, he
was given a DD Form 214 that reflected his release from
active duty and an RE-3O reenlistment code. Even though
not required by any of the regulations, he was also coun-
seled by his supervisor that refusing his PCS orders would
have the above-described consequences. None of the AR
Program Policy Manual, Marine Corps Order 1300.8R
¶ 1102, Marine Administrative Message 552/12, or Marine
Corps Separation Manual 1005 ¶ 3 require any more notice
than Mr. Johnson was provided, nor do they require a sep-
aration board. Thus, this process satisfied all the relevant
orders and regulations.
Still, Mr. Johnson argues on appeal that he was enti-
tled to greater notice and a separation board prior to being
released from the AR Program and transferred to the IRR.
We are not persuaded. Starting with his notice argument,
it is not entirely clear from the briefs what additional pro-
cedures, apart from a separation board, Mr. Johnson would
have liked to receive. The only provision cited in Mr. John-
son’s opening brief as requiring “specific notification safe-
guards” is ¶ 6311.3(a) of the Separation Manual.
Appellant’s Br. 12. But Mr. Johnson has not pointed us to
any notification procedure listed in ¶ 6311.3(a) that was
Case: 22-1399 Document: 44 Page: 12 Filed: 08/03/2023

-- 12 of 16 --

JOHNSON v. US 13
required and that he did not receive upon transfer to the
IRR.4
And even had this argument been fully briefed, there
would be substantial evidence to find that the more limited
notification requirements of ¶ 6311.3(a) were met here.
Paragraph 6311.3(a) provides:
Upon transfer to the IRR, the member will be noti-
fied of the following:
(1) The characterization of service upon transfer
from active duty or the Selected Marine Corps Re-
serve to the IRR, and that the characterization of
service upon completion of the military service ob-
ligation in the IRR will be the same.
(2) The date upon which the military service obli-
gations will expire.
(3) The date by which the member must submit ev-
idence of satisfactory completion of the conditions
set forth in paragraph 6303.4b(1)(c).
The very next subsection of ¶ 6311.3, subsection (b), then
makes clear that “the [additional] notification procedures
in paragraph 6303” are only required if “the separation au-
thority proposes to discharge the Marine with a character-
ization of service less than honorable.” Separation Manual
¶ 6311.3(b). Otherwise, no further proceedings are re-
quired. Id.
Here, as explained above, Mr. Johnson was not dis-
charged—he was transferred to the IRR from the AR Pro-
gram. When he was released from the AR Program, he was
given a DD Form 214 that listed his character of service as
“honorable,” thereby satisfying the first notification
4 Indeed, this paragraph of the Separation Manual
was not even provided to this court in the Joint Appendix.
Case: 22-1399 Document: 44 Page: 13 Filed: 08/03/2023

-- 13 of 16 --

JOHNSON v. US 14
requirement in ¶ 6311.3(a). J.A. 115. His DD Form 214 also
satisfied the second notification requirement because it ex-
plains that his reason for separation was “completion of re-
quired active service.” J.A. 115. This clarifies that he was
not separated from the Reserve completely, just from the
AR Program (the active service), and therefore the date
upon which his military service in the Reserve would ex-
pire stayed the same as was listed in his most recent en-
listment contract: 48 months from November 10, 2011. J.A.
2. That his service would extend to the date on his contract,
regardless of whether he was in the AR Program or in the
IRR, is further supported by the statement in the AR Pro-
gram Policy Manual indicating that a reservist’s contrac-
tual term reflects service in the Reserve generally, not the
AR Program specifically. Marine Corps Order 1001.52J
(“Contractual time in the reserve component does not guar-
antee continued service in the AR Program.”). Finally, the
third notification requirement is inapplicable to Mr. John-
son because ¶ 6303.4b(1)(c) applies only to “[m]embers of
Reserve components not on active duty,” and Mr. Johnson
was being transferred from an active-duty role in the Re-
serve to the IRR. Thus, Mr. Johnson has identified no por-
tion of ¶ 6311.3(a) that was required and not met here.
Given that we see no authority requiring some greater
level of notice than Mr. Johnson received, we are left only
with Mr. Johnson’s argument that he was entitled to a sep-
aration board under ¶ 6303 of the Separation Manual. We
are similarly unpersuaded by this argument because
¶ 6303 is inapplicable here. Paragraph 6303 begins by stat-
ing “[t]he procedures and requirements outlined in this
paragraph are applicable under any specific reason for sep-
aration contained in section 2.” Separation Manual at 6-42
(emphasis added). But Mr. Johnson was not separated for
any of the reasons listed in section 2. Id. at 6-16–6-40. Even
if he were, not all the reasons for separation in section 2
require a separation board under section 3 (¶ 6303). Id. at
6-60–6-63 (providing a table that indicates whether greater
Case: 22-1399 Document: 44 Page: 14 Filed: 08/03/2023

-- 14 of 16 --

JOHNSON v. US 15
notice or a separation board is required for each reason
listed in section 2). Given that (a) Mr. Johnson’s separation
was for a reason other than the reasons listed in section 2,
and (b) even if it were to potentially fit within one of these
reasons, Mr. Johnson cannot point us to a specific category
so that we might determine whether a separation board is
necessary for that category, we are left to conclude that the
¶ 6303 separation board procedures are inapplicable to Mr.
Johnson’s case.
Mr. Johnson argues that ¶ 6303 should nonetheless ap-
ply because his transfer to the IRR falls within the Separa-
tion Manual’s definition of “separation,” Separation
Manual ¶ 1002(50), and because chapter 6 states:
The procedures and instructions in this chapter
pertain to the administrative separation of Ma-
rines before completion of active or obligated ser-
vice. Unless specifically authorized by separate
order, only the reasons contained in this chapter
may form the basis for a Marine’s separation,
whether voluntary or involuntary.
Id. ¶ 6001. But even if Mr. Johnson’s release from the AR
Program and transfer to the IRR does fall within the broad
definition of “separation” in ¶ 1002, nothing in the Separa-
tion Manual implies that every type of separation requires
a separation board. First, as discussed above, not every
type of separation reason contained in Chapter 6 requires
a separation board, let alone separation reasons not in
Chapter 6. And second, the court was correct in concluding
that the reason for Mr. Johnson’s separation was not one
of the reasons in Chapter 6 because it was “specifically au-
thorized by separate order[s],” id. ¶ 6001, including Marine
Corps Order 1300.8R ¶ 1102, Marine Administrative
Case: 22-1399 Document: 44 Page: 15 Filed: 08/03/2023

-- 15 of 16 --

JOHNSON v. US 16
Message 552/12,5 and Marine Corps Separation Manual
1005 ¶ 3.
We have considered Mr. Johnson’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. Because we agree with
the Court of Federal Claims that Mr. Johnson was not en-
titled to additional notice or a separation board prior to his
release from the AR Program and transfer to the IRR, we
affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
5 Mr. Johnson argues that “[t]here is nothing giving
[the Marine Administrative Message] the authority to sep-
arate Marines early, as was done via [the Marine Adminis-
trative Message] 552/12.” Appellant’s Br. 15. But we need
not consider this argument because even if correct, his sep-
aration was also authorized by Marine Corps Order
1300.8R ¶ 1102 and Marine Corps Separation Manual
1005 ¶ 3.
Case: 22-1399 Document: 44 Page: 16 Filed: 08/03/2023

-- 16 of 16 --