[00:00:07] Speaker 04:
Mr. Cassara.

[00:00:11] Speaker 01:
Good morning, judges.

[00:00:12] Speaker 01:
Pleasure to see you all.

[00:00:14] Speaker 01:
Judge Laurie, I've asked to reserve three minutes of rebuttal in this case.

[00:00:18] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, my name is William Cassara from Augusta, Georgia.

[00:00:20] Speaker 01:
I represent the decorated Marine in this case, Mr. Craig Johnson.

[00:00:25] Speaker 01:
It's my honor to do so.

[00:00:27] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, as the Marine Corps,

[00:00:29] Speaker 01:
Improperly discharged Mr. Johnson prior to the expiration of his contract and gave him the lifelong stigma of a RE30 separation code without due process of law.

[00:00:40] Speaker 01:
The standard of review in this case from a decision from the Board of Correction for Naval Records is de novo.

[00:00:46] Speaker 03:
Why is a transfer from active reserve to IRR a discharge?

[00:00:51] Speaker 01:
Because Mark Korsman says it is.

[00:00:54] Speaker 01:
It is the main reason.

[00:00:55] Speaker 01:
And it's especially, Judge,

[00:00:57] Speaker 03:
You know, it says it's a separation, doesn't it?

[00:00:59] Speaker 01:
Well, when it defines discharge, one of the exact languages that it uses is transferred to the IRR.

[00:01:09] Speaker 01:
That language is clearly within the Mark Horsman, as we point out in our brief.

[00:01:12] Speaker 03:
Where does it say discharge is at?

[00:01:14] Speaker 03:
It says separation in Mark Horsman.

[00:01:16] Speaker 03:
Are you talking about 1,000?

[00:01:17] Speaker 03:
I get it.

[00:01:19] Speaker 03:
These military cases are super complex.

[00:01:22] Speaker 01:
It's all I do, Judge.

[00:01:23] Speaker 01:
I know.

[00:01:23] Speaker 01:
Believe me.

[00:01:24] Speaker 01:
It took me 20 minutes to figure out how to say Mark Horsman as opposed to something else.

[00:01:27] Speaker 01:
Well, that's another thing I have with the military.

[00:01:30] Speaker 03:
But pronouncing these acronyms is ridiculous.

[00:01:34] Speaker 03:
But we're talking about 1,250, right?

[00:01:37] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:01:38] Speaker 03:
Where does it say discharge includes?

[00:01:42] Speaker 03:
It says separation is the general term that includes this whole thing.

[00:01:47] Speaker 03:
It doesn't equate discharge with that, does it?

[00:01:51] Speaker 03:
No, but I think that that is, I mean... In fact, it sets out discharge as separate from a change from active divi to IRR.

[00:02:00] Speaker 01:
But the Mark Horsman, assuming I am pronouncing that correctly, is the authority

[00:02:04] Speaker 01:
on the procedures of separating Marines.

[00:02:07] Speaker 03:
You just got up and said they discharged him, but they didn't discharge him, they transferred him, and that counts as a separation, but not necessarily a discharge, right?

[00:02:19] Speaker 01:
Well, I think it's a distinction without a difference, but I think that the difference does come in in terms of the regulatory requirement that a Marine who is being separated

[00:02:29] Speaker 01:
with more than six years active duty is required to be sent to an administrative separation board.

[00:02:35] Speaker 01:
In fact, the language is the exact term of an administrative separation board.

[00:02:38] Speaker 01:
So therefore, one being separated is entitled to a board.

[00:02:41] Speaker 03:
That's what they're required to under Chapter 6?

[00:02:46] Speaker 01:
Yes, Judge.

[00:02:47] Speaker 03:
But Chapter 6 doesn't cover every single separation in 1250, does it?

[00:02:52] Speaker 03:
Clearly does not.

[00:02:54] Speaker 03:
OK, so where in Chapter 6 does it cover a transfer from the AR to the IRR?

[00:03:00] Speaker 01:
it does not directly address the issue.

[00:03:02] Speaker 01:
And I think that that's really the issue in this case.

[00:03:05] Speaker 01:
I think that there's really, as one pulls back the veil on all of these acronyms and all of the procedural issues.

[00:03:11] Speaker 03:
Let me just say, I don't understand that.

[00:03:13] Speaker 03:
If we recognize that separation is a broad category, and that it includes some things that you get a board for and some things you don't, which I think you agree with.

[00:03:21] Speaker 03:
Yes, sir.

[00:03:22] Speaker 03:
And chapter six is the category for which you get a board.

[00:03:26] Speaker 03:
then you have to show that this action is covered in Chapter 6.

[00:03:31] Speaker 03:
Where in Chapter 6 would you put this action?

[00:03:35] Speaker 01:
So I don't have, Judge, if I can, I don't have the exact language of Chapter 6 in front of me, but I do have the... Well, it's in your appendix.

[00:03:46] Speaker 01:
I know it's in the appendix, Judge.

[00:03:47] Speaker 01:
I don't have the appendix in front of me, I should say.

[00:03:51] Speaker 03:
You know, you have to bring your appendix to our argument.

[00:03:54] Speaker 01:
My apologies, Judge.

[00:03:55] Speaker 01:
It's on my computer.

[00:03:56] Speaker 01:
I did not fire him.

[00:03:57] Speaker 03:
Josh, can you give him... Sorry.

[00:04:00] Speaker 03:
It's on page 678 of the appendix.

[00:04:06] Speaker 03:
Unless it's marked up and you don't want to share it.

[00:04:16] Speaker 03:
Sorry, 678 and 691 to 692 and 3.

[00:04:18] Speaker 03:
Is there anything in there where you would put a transfer from the AR to the IRR?

[00:04:29] Speaker 01:
Well, I think that there are several where it could fall.

[00:04:32] Speaker 03:
I mean... I mean, you didn't make this argument in your brief, did you?

[00:04:36] Speaker 03:
The chapter six, I mean do you understand my problem here is we recognize there's a broad category of separations.

[00:04:42] Speaker 03:
Not everything gets a chapter six procedure.

[00:04:45] Speaker 03:
So you have to point out where in chapter six this falls and you haven't done it.

[00:04:49] Speaker 03:
So why should he get the board?

[00:04:51] Speaker 01:
Because the broader language says that Marines with six years of active duty and who are going to be given a negative RE code are entitled to a board.

[00:05:00] Speaker 01:
That's the Marc Horsman.

[00:05:01] Speaker 01:
I realize that there is some conflict between the Marc Horsman and the separation and retirement manuals and, you know, these other acronyms.

[00:05:09] Speaker 01:
That those things don't necessarily coincide.

[00:05:12] Speaker 01:
That should not endure to the detriment of the Marine.

[00:05:15] Speaker 01:
the Marine should be given the language that he was told when he enlisted for a period of X number of years and was separated shorter than that.

[00:05:23] Speaker 03:
So your view is that language, even if it doesn't fall within Chapter 6, he still gets bored?

[00:05:29] Speaker 01:
The graviment of Chapter 6 is that those Marines who fall under, who have six years of active duty, and it charts out a number of examples for it,

[00:05:37] Speaker 01:
This particular bizarre situation where one is in the active reserve and is then moved over to the IRR, no, it is not covered directly in Chapter 6.

[00:05:46] Speaker 01:
I certainly believe that it is covered within the spirit of Chapter 6, for lack of a better term.

[00:05:52] Speaker 01:
Judges, I think it's really helpful for us to do just a quick sort of what happened here.

[00:05:57] Speaker 01:
And what happened here is that this Marine enlisted for a period

[00:06:02] Speaker 01:
of four years, he then re-enlisted.

[00:06:04] Speaker 01:
He was not extended.

[00:06:05] Speaker 01:
That's a distinction, again, with a difference.

[00:06:08] Speaker 01:
He re-enlisted.

[00:06:09] Speaker 01:
When he re-enlisted, there are certain things that he was told.

[00:06:12] Speaker 01:
And one of those was, this is a contract with the United States.

[00:06:15] Speaker 01:
This will last for a period of four years.

[00:06:18] Speaker 01:
Family life happens as happens in the life of a service member that family life Did not enable him to take that initial assignment.

[00:06:26] Speaker 01:
He requested an extension I think the judges know this court knows the Now one of the issues in this case, and I'll get back to this in a second, but one of the issues in this case

[00:06:43] Speaker 04:
and he knew that if he didn't he would be subject to a re-entry code of RE30 and he made that choice.

[00:06:50] Speaker 01:
No, it's not the end of it because there's also another part of that which is that there's a provision in that same language that says that he understand that he requests that he be the understanding was that he would be Separated even with it wasn't with an re30 code that that would be at the end of that two-year period so that portion of the the language in the page 11 entry is important and

[00:07:15] Speaker 01:
And actually, they didn't put it in the page 11 entry, but they cited a regulation that includes the page 11 entry.

[00:07:21] Speaker 01:
So the fact that he had this case come about where Mr. Johnson was told, in two years, when your enlistment is up, you're done, and we're going to give you an RE30.

[00:07:35] Speaker 01:
That's a different story, because that's the end of his enlistment.

[00:07:38] Speaker 01:
And there's a separate procedure for that.

[00:07:42] Speaker 01:
That is not what happened in this case.

[00:07:43] Speaker 01:
In this case, they cut his enlistment short.

[00:07:46] Speaker 01:
And that requires due process.

[00:07:48] Speaker 01:
He did not get that due process.

[00:07:51] Speaker 02:
I might need you to repeat that for me.

[00:07:54] Speaker 02:
I don't know if I'm following your distinction.

[00:07:58] Speaker 02:
What is it in what he signed that differs from what really happened to him?

[00:08:03] Speaker 02:
It seemed to me everything that happened to him

[00:08:06] Speaker 02:
was entirely consistent with what he was told would happen to him.

[00:08:10] Speaker 01:
He was told that he would get an RE-30.

[00:08:13] Speaker 01:
There was also a citation to a Mark Horsman, I believe, or a Marv Adman, I forget which one, which says that he will be continued until the end of his enlistment.

[00:08:23] Speaker 01:
And you're saying he was not continued?

[00:08:24] Speaker 01:
He was not.

[00:08:25] Speaker 01:
He was cut short two years from his enlistment.

[00:08:28] Speaker 01:
He was transferred, right?

[00:08:30] Speaker 01:
He was transferred from an active reserve position, which is

[00:08:36] Speaker 01:
And it's this strange active reserve position, Judge, if I can help the court out a little bit.

[00:08:41] Speaker 01:
You are on active duty.

[00:08:44] Speaker 01:
That's the A part of the active reserve.

[00:08:46] Speaker 01:
Your component is, in this case, the Marine Corps Reserve.

[00:08:50] Speaker 01:
But he is a member of the active reserve.

[00:08:53] Speaker 01:
and he's an active-duty Marine at that point.

[00:08:55] Speaker 01:
He is then transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve, which is a non-drilling, non-participating portion of the reserve.

[00:09:02] Speaker 02:
And are you saying part of your claim before us is that he wasn't told he was going to be transferred to the IRR?

[00:09:08] Speaker 01:
No, that he was not told that his enlistment would be cut short.

[00:09:11] Speaker 01:
I didn't understand the no.

[00:09:14] Speaker 01:
Did I get it right or did I get it wrong?

[00:09:16] Speaker 01:
That is not part of my claim.

[00:09:18] Speaker 01:
So tell me again what the claim is.

[00:09:19] Speaker 01:
The claim is that his enlistment was cut two years short and that he was given a stigmatizing RE code.

[00:09:27] Speaker 03:
What was cut too short?

[00:09:29] Speaker 03:
Wasn't he just enlisted in the reserves and assigned to active reserve duty and then transferred to the individual ready part of the reserves?

[00:09:39] Speaker 03:
So his enlistment wasn't cut short.

[00:09:41] Speaker 03:
He served the remainder of his reserve duty.

[00:09:44] Speaker 03:
but just in a different component of the reserves.

[00:09:47] Speaker 01:
Well, the actual interesting thing about this case, and I don't know if this helps or hurts my cause, so the court understands, three months later, he was put back into a regular position.

[00:09:57] Speaker 03:
Doesn't that suggest that his enlistment was never cut short?

[00:10:02] Speaker 03:
He was transferred to a different component of the reserves.

[00:10:05] Speaker 03:
There's a difference between transferring to different parts of the reserves

[00:10:09] Speaker 03:
ending the enlistment early, isn't there?

[00:10:12] Speaker 01:
There is, Judge.

[00:10:14] Speaker 01:
And the key distinction in this case that we are asking the court to make is whether one who is in the active reserve, the AR, is entitled to the protections of an active duty Marine or entitled to the protections of a reserve Marine.

[00:10:27] Speaker 01:
That's in a fine line.

[00:10:30] Speaker 01:
That is one of the main issues in this case.

[00:10:32] Speaker 01:
We contend that because he was on an active duty status and because he signed a contract for an extension of four years on that active duty status, that he is entitled to protections of a separation board.

[00:10:48] Speaker 01:
The government argues that Mr. Johnson was terminated from employment.

[00:10:54] Speaker 01:
The Mark Horsman is the authority on procedures for separating marines.

[00:10:58] Speaker 01:
According to paragraph 10011, the manual for separating marines includes

[00:11:04] Speaker 01:
when a Marine is separated before completion of their service obligation by reason of administrative separation, both voluntarily and involuntarily.

[00:11:13] Speaker 01:
That is exactly what happened in this case, and that is what triggers the board provisions.

[00:11:18] Speaker 01:
Mr. Johnson's case falls squarely under paragraph B. The main question in this case, Judge Hughes, as you said, is how to interpret the word separation and whether the procedural protections that apply to a Marine who is being involuntary separated apply to the facts of this case.

[00:11:32] Speaker 01:
The definition of separation in the Mark Horsman states directly, when one is transferred from active duty to the IRR, that is what happened in this case.

[00:11:44] Speaker 01:
This contradicts the BCNR's finding that the plaintiff was not separated and was instead somehow released from active duty, as release and separation are essentially the same thing.

[00:11:58] Speaker 01:
The government argues that Mr. Johnson does not offer any authority that he was entitled to the notification requirements.

[00:12:04] Speaker 01:
However, MCO 1900.16 Foxtrot, 16F, excuse me, my old habit to die hard sometimes, judges, applies to Mr. Johnson's situation.

[00:12:14] Speaker 01:
The board said these procedures were not required because Mr. Johnson was not separated, but also because the Mar admin took authoritative precedence over the Mar corpsman.

[00:12:23] Speaker 01:
We disagree.

[00:12:24] Speaker 01:
The government says

[00:12:27] Speaker 01:
The government argues that while he was separated, he was not entitled to procedural requirements of one who is separated.

[00:12:33] Speaker 01:
That seems to be contradictory within the government's own language.

[00:12:36] Speaker 01:
Judges, I'm already into my rebuttal time.

[00:12:38] Speaker 01:
Subject to any questions from the members of the court, that concludes my initial presentation.

[00:12:49] Speaker 00:
May it please the court one thing that I thought would be helpful today Would be to just run through some sections of the separation manual that make in my view very clear that Separation does not guarantee a separation board but to do that

[00:13:12] Speaker 00:
There's two pages of the separation manual that I believe have been referred to in the briefs, but were not in the joint appendix.

[00:13:22] Speaker 00:
And so I have copies of these.

[00:13:24] Speaker 00:
I provided Mr. Johnson's counsel a copy earlier.

[00:13:29] Speaker 00:
So if I could approach the bench, I could give these to the court.

[00:13:34] Speaker 04:
There's no objection to hand them to the deputy.

[00:13:37] Speaker 01:
I don't have an objection.

[00:13:39] Speaker 01:
I don't know that this was in effect.

[00:13:42] Speaker 01:
But whatever value it may provide in the court, we're fine with that.

[00:13:47] Speaker 03:
Before you start, a question occurred to me.

[00:13:50] Speaker 03:
And I'm not sure this is what your present counsel is arguing.

[00:13:55] Speaker 03:
But if you're on active duty, not active duty reserve, but active duty, and you get transferred to the reserves, do you get a board then?

[00:14:06] Speaker 03:
Is that a discharge?

[00:14:09] Speaker 03:
I guess I'm sure your answer is going to be you can't answer that because you don't know what the basis for the transfer was.

[00:14:16] Speaker 03:
So maybe it's not a good question.

[00:14:18] Speaker 03:
But I just wondered if that's what your friend is trying to say, is that because if you're on active duty, not active duty reserves, and you get a change in status, you get a board then, and he's trying to say active duty reserve is equivalent to active duty.

[00:14:33] Speaker 03:
Does that make any sense?

[00:14:34] Speaker 03:
You can tell me no.

[00:14:36] Speaker 00:
No, I understand your honor's question, I think.

[00:14:39] Speaker 00:
But the way I see it, and I think it'll be helpful when I go through this a little bit, that we don't contest that Mr. Johnson, what happened to him, met the definition of separation.

[00:14:53] Speaker 00:
But the separation manual sets out, depending on the reason for separation, what procedures are available.

[00:15:03] Speaker 00:
Some of them entitle the service member to certain levels of notice.

[00:15:07] Speaker 00:
Some of them entitle the service member to a separation board.

[00:15:10] Speaker 00:
But they're all different.

[00:15:13] Speaker 00:
So anyway, that was my plan here.

[00:15:17] Speaker 04:
Mr. Medelbaum, what you just handed to us that you give to the opposing

[00:15:26] Speaker 03:
Do you know whether these are the versions that were in place at the time?

[00:15:31] Speaker 00:
I asked the Navy for the versions in place at the time and this is what the Navy gave me.

[00:15:37] Speaker 00:
So that's my understanding, Your Honor.

[00:15:41] Speaker 00:
I believe this version was from 2007 and I looked and it was changed in late 2013 after

[00:15:50] Speaker 00:
This took place, so I think this is the applicable version.

[00:15:55] Speaker 00:
If I could direct the court to its section 6303, which is the second to last page here.

[00:16:12] Speaker 00:
It's at the bottom.

[00:16:13] Speaker 00:
I highlighted parts of this.

[00:16:14] Speaker 03:
It says 642 at the bottom, 6-42.

[00:16:17] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:16:19] Speaker 00:
So this is the beginning of the notification procedure section.

[00:16:24] Speaker 00:
So I believe this is Mr. Johnson's argument is that he's entitled to these notification procedures.

[00:16:33] Speaker 00:
Well, paragraph 1 under section 6303 says, the procedures and requirements outlined in this paragraph are applicable under any specific reason for separation contained in section 2.

[00:16:47] Speaker 00:
So you need to look to section 2.

[00:16:49] Speaker 00:
And then also below that, in paragraph 2 and then subsection B,

[00:16:55] Speaker 00:
It says, if a reason for separation stated in the Notice of Proposed Action requires processing under the Administrative Board Procedure, process per paragraph 6304, and then see Table 6-2 for bases requiring Administrative Board Procedures.

[00:17:17] Speaker 00:
Also, while we're still on this document, on the very last page, it has the beginning of section 6304, which is the administrative board procedures.

[00:17:28] Speaker 00:
And the first line begins if an administrative board is required.

[00:17:35] Speaker 00:
So just from that, it's clear you don't always get an administrative board if you're separated.

[00:17:39] Speaker 03:
Is table 6-2 what I was discussing with your friend in the appendix?

[00:17:44] Speaker 00:
It is that one is in the joint appendix your honor

[00:17:53] Speaker 00:
691 through 693.

[00:17:56] Speaker 03:
Right, that's what we were looking at.

[00:18:00] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:18:00] Speaker 03:
And so only, in your view, only those things in 6-2 could be special procedure.

[00:18:04] Speaker 00:
Well, not even all of these, Your Honor.

[00:18:06] Speaker 00:
That's part of my point, that if the court could refer to Appendix 691 through 693,

[00:18:16] Speaker 00:
This, it lists all these various categories of involuntary separations that are from section two.

[00:18:29] Speaker 00:
At the top, it has a series of notes.

[00:18:34] Speaker 00:
This is notes one, two, three, all the way through 10.

[00:18:40] Speaker 00:
Over on Appendix 694, it explains what those notes mean.

[00:18:47] Speaker 00:
And so some of the earlier ones are describing different degrees of notice that could be afforded to the Marine.

[00:18:56] Speaker 00:
Number seven is Marine must be afforded the right to present his or her case before an administrative separation board with the advice and assistance of counsel, referring to the separation manual, paragraph 6304.

[00:19:14] Speaker 00:
under those notes for every type of involuntary separation, it's either blank, or there's an X, or there's a hashtag, or there's a letter Y.

[00:19:29] Speaker 00:
On Appendix 693, about a third from the bottom, there's a legend that explains what those mean.

[00:19:37] Speaker 00:
The Y means yes.

[00:19:39] Speaker 00:
So if there's a Y under Note 7 in that column, that means the service member is entitled to a separation board.

[00:19:47] Speaker 00:
If there's an X, it means only if the Marine has six or more years of active and inactive service.

[00:19:53] Speaker 03:
Did that apply to Mr. Johnson?

[00:19:56] Speaker 00:
uh... yes your honor so if there's a y or an x and he could point to one of these categories and bases where there's separation in seven he would have gotten a board correct and then the the hashtag one is it's either six or more years of active or inactive service or uh... an other than honorable discharge is a possibility and then if some of these are blank

[00:20:25] Speaker 00:
The way I read it, if it's blank, then there is no separation board option.

[00:20:34] Speaker 00:
So that's what I wanted to point out.

[00:20:41] Speaker 00:
Other than that, I do still have some time remaining.

[00:20:43] Speaker 00:
But I think it sounds like the court has a good understanding of the case of subject and quest.

[00:20:49] Speaker 00:
I'd be happy to answer any further questions.

[00:20:51] Speaker 02:
You just talked me on what says enlistment cut short for two years?

[00:20:55] Speaker 00:
no your honor because he continued to serve in the inactive reserve.

[00:21:00] Speaker 00:
The IRR.

[00:21:01] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:21:02] Speaker 00:
Or excuse me, the individual ready reserve.

[00:21:05] Speaker 00:
I misquoted it there.

[00:21:07] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:21:08] Speaker 00:
He served in the IRR for about two and a half months and then he rejoined the active reserves for an assignment in another assignment in I think it was in Quantico, Virginia.

[00:21:20] Speaker 00:
It was somewhere in Virginia.

[00:21:24] Speaker 00:
And just to that point, being in the individual ready reserve, it is something.

[00:21:32] Speaker 00:
Just being in the individual ready reserve entitles a service member to retirement points per year.

[00:21:39] Speaker 03:
Can I just ask you to, do you think we can take the initial notice of this?

[00:21:45] Speaker 03:
Was this before the trial court?

[00:21:48] Speaker 03:
Assuming you're a present counsel, you can confer and agree that this is

[00:21:54] Speaker 03:
the proper version of the regulations.

[00:21:57] Speaker 03:
Is it something we can take judicial notice of, or do you need to supplement the record?

[00:22:02] Speaker 03:
And was it presented to law?

[00:22:04] Speaker 03:
I'm just a little confused about making sure the record's clear.

[00:22:07] Speaker 00:
Now, I understand.

[00:22:08] Speaker 00:
I haven't researched that specifically.

[00:22:12] Speaker 00:
My assumption would be the court could take judicial notice of it, because it's a publicly available.

[00:22:19] Speaker 00:
The Marine Corps separation manual should be publicly available.

[00:22:23] Speaker 00:
It's not evidence really it's more source of regulations Right rules and regulations right your honor, so I would I would think so I don't I don't know if it was presented below That may be why it was not in the joint appendix But parts of the separation manual are in the joint appendix So it may be that I don't know if the entire separation manual was presented below or only parts of it

[00:22:50] Speaker 02:
and you would have no objection to us taking judicial notice of what you just handed out?

[00:22:55] Speaker 00:
No, Your Honor.

[00:22:59] Speaker 04:
Any further?

[00:23:00] Speaker 00:
No, Your Honor, I'm happy to rest our case now.

[00:23:13] Speaker 03:
much of your above the time, but assuming you find that this is the correct version that's applicable, would you have any objection to us taking judicial notice of this?

[00:23:21] Speaker 03:
No, no, Judge.

[00:23:21] Speaker 03:
Okay, thank you.

[00:23:23] Speaker 01:
Judge, there's just a couple of things I wanted to point on.

[00:23:25] Speaker 01:
One was to answer one of your questions, Judge, is whether one is on active duty and is transferred to the IRR or the Marine Corps Reserve, whether or not they are entitled to the board.

[00:23:36] Speaker 01:
It actually goes opposite of that.

[00:23:38] Speaker 01:
If one is facing a board and if one is being separated, then there are provisions, and this is in the AR, there are provisions to transfer them to the IRR.

[00:23:47] Speaker 01:
I don't know, in 30 years of doing this, I've never heard of somebody transferred from the active duty to the IRR.

[00:23:55] Speaker 01:
without going to separation proceedings first.

[00:23:58] Speaker 01:
I hope that clears it up for the court.

[00:24:00] Speaker 01:
Your honor, one of the things that I would like to point out in my last couple of minutes here is that on Mr. Johnson's DD214, the separation authority was listed as Mark Horsman 1005.

[00:24:11] Speaker 01:
In Mark Horsman 1005, it states specifically that Marines will be released

[00:24:21] Speaker 01:
In other words, that Marines separated before their expiration of enlistment will be transferred to the IRR subject to the guidance in 6001.

[00:24:28] Speaker 01:
And it discusses that the narrative reason given for separation in Mr. Johnson's case was expiration of term of service.

[00:24:38] Speaker 01:
That is simply incorrect.

[00:24:40] Speaker 01:
He was cut short.

[00:24:41] Speaker 01:
The fact that Marine Corps

[00:24:45] Speaker 01:
Like I said earlier, Judge, the fact that the Marine Corps regulations seem to contradict with one another, in our opinion, does not iner to the detriment of Mr. Johnson.

[00:24:55] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, subject to any further questions from the members of the court, that would conclude my presentation today.

[00:25:01] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Counsel.

[00:25:02] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Judge.