Clifford v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
120 Fed. Appx. 355 (2005)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Mark A. Clifford (plaintiff), an army recruiter, was accused of sexually assaulting a prospective recruit, leading to civilian and military proceedings against him. Clifford’s commander recommended that he be dishonorably discharged. Clifford appealed the recommendation and requested a hearing before the administrative-separation board. The board scheduled a hearing for January 22, 1999, and Clifford requested a six-week delay of the hearing. The board denied the request but granted a two-week delay and rescheduled the hearing for February 3, 1999. During the two-week delay, Clifford decided to proceed without military counsel and instead hired a civilian attorney who was unavailable to attend a hearing until after June 1, 1999. Clifford’s expired-time-of-service (ETS) date was May 26, 1999. The civilian attorney requested that the hearing be delayed until after June 1, and the board denied the request. Clifford attended the February 3 hearing without counsel, and the board recommended that he receive an other-than-honorable discharge. Clifford later filed suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims, requesting that the court set aside his discharge characterization and arguing that his right to due process had been violated because, among other things, he had been denied the right to legal representation at the hearing. The court denied Clifford’s request, and Clifford appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.