James Murphy v. Daniel Driscoll

── James Murphy v. Daniel Driscoll ── Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Date: May 26, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 25-5119 September Term, 2025 FILED ON: MAY 26, 2026 JAMES F. MURPHY, APPELLANT v. DANIEL DRISCOLL, THE HONORABLE; IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE ARMY APPELLEE Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:23-cv-03481) Before: SRINIVASAN, Chief Judge, and HENDERSON and RAO, Circuit Judges. JUDGMENT This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs and oral argument of the parties. The panel has accorded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C. Cir. R. 36(d). For the reasons stated below, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED. I Sergeant First Class James Murphy retired from the United States Army Reserve in 2010 after more than thirty years of honorable service. Shortly thereafter, he filed an application with the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (Board) seeking to change his retirement from a reserve retirement due to reaching maximum age to an active-duty retirement based on medical disability. 1 Murphy had suffered several on-the-job injuries during temporary active-duty assignments and believed they rendered him unable to meet medical retention standards. Thus, 1 “The Secretary of a military department may correct any military record of the Secretary’s department when the Secretary considers it necessary to correct an error or remove an injustice.” 10 U.S.C. § 1552(a)(1). The Board conducts administrative review on behalf of the Secretary of the Army and its decisions constitute final action by the Secretary. 32 C.F.R. § 581.3(g)(2). he argued, the Army should have referred him for a medical evaluation at the time of the injuries and ultimately separated him for unfitness. The Board denied Murphy’s request in October 2011, finding that he had continued to perform his duties adequately despite any injury. See, e.g., J.A. 134 (“[H]e was rated successful in all duties and found fully capable by his rater.”). Murphy requested reconsideration. See 32 C.F.R. § 581.3(g)(4). The Board returned the request without action because Murphy had not included any new evidence or argument. See id. § 581.3(e)(1)(iv). In December 2014, Murphy submitted a second application to the Board, J.A. 159, requesting a change in the narrative reason for his separation (from “completion of required active service” to “disability”), J.A. 151. Applications typically must be filed “within 3 years after an alleged error or injustice is discovered or reasonably should have been discovered.” 32 C.F.R. § 581.3(d)(2). Murphy’s application—submitted over four years after his retirement—was untimely but the Board determined “in the interest of justice” to “conduct a substantive review.” J.A. 152; see 32 C.F.R. § 581.3(d)(2) (“The [Board] may excuse untimely filing in the interest of justice.”). Ultimately, the Board denied the request in September 2015 because Murphy “was not released from active duty due to unfitness” and “was never found unfit for duty.” J.A. 157. In December 2021, Murphy submitted a third application to the Board, requesting different, although closely related, relief. The Board treated the application as a request for reconsideration of its 2015 decision. Applicants typically must file requests for reconsideration within one year of the Board’s initial decision. 32 C.F.R. § 581.3(g)(4).