OLSON v NATIONAL GUARD

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

50. i2307 IN ?i'HL .3II;KENK COURT OF THE STATE OF Z"lOi\JAT\TA 1972 L 1, C;(7I,\)NEL !lENi<f S . OI,SC)N , P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vs THE :yAT LL)IJAI, GUARD OF THE STATE OF 14ONTAIJA, e t a I-. , D e f e n d a n t s and R e s p o n d e n t s , Appeal from: District C o u r t o f t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable P a u l G , H a t f i e l d , Judge p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record: For Appellant: S m i t h , Emrnons and B a i l l i e , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana. B a r r y T. 01-son a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana. TJi 1l i a m Cl-arke a r g u e d , Hel-ena , Montana, 3 i r k L a r s e n a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana. Yon. R o b e r t L , Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Yontana. 3 . C. I d e i n g a r t n e r , Deputy A t t o r n e y General., a r g u e d , T4elena, Montana, Submitted : ~ ei d e d : c O c t o b e r 1 8 , 1972 wov 1 3 1972 M r , J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court . This i s an appeal from an order of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e e i g h t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , Cascade County, dismissing a two count complaint f o r t h e reason t h a t t h e s t a t e c o u r t lacked jurisdiction. Appellant, L t . Col. Henry S. Olson, f i l e d s u i t i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t seeking t o have h i s discharge from t h e Montana A i r National Guard declared i n v a l i d . L t . Col, Olson had been an o f f i c e r i n the A i r National Guard s i n c e 1954, and had p r i o r s e r v i c e , g i v i n g him 20 years of s e r v i c e . I n August 1971, h e was n o t i f i e d he would n o t be r e t a i n e d a s an a l e r t f l i g h t o f f i c e r , but would be discharged from the A i r National Guard and t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e A i r Reserve. To c o n t e s t h i s discharge he brought s u i t i n a two count complaint. Count I charged t h a t a l l proceedings conducted by t h e V i t a l i z a t i o n Board, a c t i n g under t h e provisions of " ~ n t e r i m Change t o ANGR 36-05, 18 Dec. 1967" were i l l e g a l . During o r a l argument before t h i s Court counsel f o r a p p e l l a n t s t a t e d t h a t t h e question presented i s moot, s o w e w i l l t h e r e f o r e n o t d i s c u s s Court I, Count I1 a l l e g e s a p p e l l a n t was removed from t h e a l e r t program of t h e Montana A i r National Guard because he contested t h e v a l i d i t y and a c t i o n of t h e V i t a l i z a t i o n Board. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t dismissed t h e complaint on t h e grounds t h a t t h e c o u r t lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n over both t h e s u b j e c t matter of t h e cause and t h e person; f u r t h e r t h a t t h e complaint f a i l e d t o s t a t e a cause of a c t i o n upon which r e l i e f could be granted. I n e f f e c t , a p p e l l a n t asks t h i s Court and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o s e r v e a s an a p p e l l a n t body t o one of t h e m i l i t a r y operations of t h e defense of t h i s country, The d i s t r i c t c o u r t properly r u l e d t h a t i t d i d n o t have such j u r i s d i c t i o n , A s t o t h e a l l e g a t i o n s of Count 11, we s h a l l s e t f o r t h certain facts. The Montana A i r National Guard h a s an i n t e g r a t e d program w i t h t h e United S t a t e s A i r Force wherein c e r t a i n u n i t s have p i l o t s on 24 hour a l e r t duty i n defense of t h e c o n t i n e n t . To be a b l e t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e a l e r t program one must be a member of t h e Montana N a t i o n a l Guard, be a c e r t i f i e d o r a c c r e d i t e d p i l o t , and be approved by t h e United S t a t e s A i r Force f o r such a l e r t status. The s e n i o r o f f i c e r of t h e Montana u n i t i s Brig. Gen.Young, whose p o s i t i o n i s f u l l time, s a l a r i e d by t h e United S t a t e s Government. The l o c a l commanding o f f i c e r i s Col. Whalen, a c o l l e g e p r o f e s s o r , who devotes h i s weekends t o h i s command and whose s a l a r y f o r t h a t duty comes from t h e f e d e r a l , n o t s t a t e government . A p p e l l a n t , a s a member of t h e A i r National Guard, served a s t h e u n i t ' s a l e r t scheduling o f f i c e r f o r t h e l a s t t h r e e y e a r s of h i s duty. I n t h i s c a p a c i t y , h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was t o s e e t h a t s e l e c t e d p i l o t s were on f u l l time a l e r t duty. He scheduled himself f o r such d u t y and over t h e p a s t 13 y e a r s h i s income was a base pay of $6,000, p l u s a l e r t f l y i n g time which averaged some $14,000 p e r year. The damages, he a l l e g e s he s u f f e r e d , were due t o h i s removal from t h e a l e r t f l i g h t pay o p p o r t u n i t i e s when he was discharged i n t o t h e A i r Reserve. When members of t h e Montana A i r N a t i o n a l Guard (MANG) a r e f l y i n g a l e r t o r on a l e r t d u t y , they a r e paid by t h e United S t a t e s Government (Air Force) and t h e y a r e completely divorced from MANG and s u b j e c t t o command by t h e United S t a t e s A i r Force; they r e c e i v e t h e i r o r d e r s from t h e A i r Force; and, b e f o r e they can become a l e r t f l y i n g o f f i c e r s they must be c e r t i f i e d and a c t i v a t e d by t h e A i r Force. The e n t i r e process of s e c u r i n g , equipping, paying and maintaining t h i s a l e r t f o r c e t o p r o t e c t che c o n t i n e n t i n v o l v e s f e d e r a l laws, r u l e s , r e g u l a t i o n s and obligations. N s t a t e law i s involved, consequently s t a t e c o u r t s o have no j u r i s d i c t i o n . In addition, it is noted that the group commander, Col. Whalen, under the authority of the United States Air Force manual, the "Air Defense Command ~anual",is authorized to select the pilots and the final judgment of selecting who is to fly is left completely to his judgment. He picks his pilots based on each man's qualifications---.i . e . training, emotional and physical status. His obligations go even further in that he is charged with the responsibility of complying with the provisions of Title 10, U.S.C.A. 5 8352. That section pro- vfdes that when an officer has acquired sufficient time to obtain his military retirement a vacancy will be available for a younger officer. new leadership. By so doing, the command can promote and train Toopthis program enables many junior officers to attain 20 years of National Guard service and qualify for retirement, A long line of cases has rightly held that federal courts will refuse to review discretionary decisions of military authorities made within their valid jurisdiction. 0'~arav, Zebrowski, 447 F.2d 1085; Orloff v, Willoughby, 195 F.2d 209; Byrne v. Resor, 412 F.2d 774; Smith v. Resor, 406 F.2d 141; Fox v. Brown, 402 F,2d 837; Winters v. United States, 281 F,Supp. 289, aff'd ' i - ,., 390 F,2d 879, Cert. denied 291 U.S. 910. We can find no reason t why the courts of this jurisdiction should interfere. The decision of the district court is affirmed, *

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.