Jerome Jablon, M.D. v. United States

Jerome Jablon, a medical doctor practicing in Van Nuys, California, sued under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (a)(2), claiming $10,000 for breach of contract. He appeals a summary judgment in favor of the government.

In an effort to recruit experienced medical practitioners, the military services offer incentive payments in addition to the statutory pay and allowances scheduled for various military pay grades. A recruiting officer, whose authority is not in issue at this stage of the case, negotiated with Dr. Jablon on behalf of the Air Force. Dr. Jablon agreed to accept a commission as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force for a period of three years at an annual salary of approximately $37,000 and a bonus of $27,000 to be payable in installments beginning upon entry on active duty.

Dr. Jablon completed the necessary paperwork and received a commission as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force Reserve on December 1, 1975. Shortly after he was commissioned, he received orders to report for active duty on February 5, 1976. He sold both his medical practice and his house.

Early in January 1976, Dr. Jablon was arrested by California officers for an alleged violation of local laws…

concurring.

I concur in the result. I agree that there was no breach of any statute or regulation; nor was there a breach of the Variable Incentive Pay agreement. That, in my opinion, fully disposes of the issues discussed in section I of the opinion (the Con *1071 tract Claims). I also agree that estoppel does not afford a basis for monetary relief against the United States where the claim arises out of an alleged misrepresentation by a military recruiting officer. Military recruitment is, for many reasons, sui generis. Courts view the process of transforming civilians into military personnel “in the military and national defense context.” Rostker v. Goldberg, — U.S. —, —, 101 S.Ct. 2646, 2651-52 , 69 L.Ed.2d 478 (1981). Constitutional and other legal rights are viewed differently when they arise in that context. This court has recently said, for example, that governmental decisions as to eligibility to serve in the military may be made for reasons which would be unconstitutional were civilian government employment at issue. Beller v. Middendorf, 632 F.2d 788, 810-812 (9th Cir. 1980). Accordingly, I would reject Dr. Jablon’s estoppel claim on the ground that it arises in a…

657 F.2d 1064 Jerome JABLON, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. No. 79-3465. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 5, 1981. Decided Sept. 28, 1981. Michael Korn, Sherman Oaks, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant. Lawrence B. Gotlieb, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for defendant-appellee; Frederick M. Brosio, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Andrea Sheridan Ordin, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., on brief. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before GOODWIN and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges, and TEMPLAR, * District Judge. GOODWIN, Circuit Judge. 1 Jerome Jablon, a medical doctor practicing in Van Nuys, California, sued under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (a)(2), claiming $10,000 for breach of contract. He appeals a summary judgment in favor of the government. 2 In an effort to recruit experienced medical practitioners, the military services offer incentive payments in addition to the statutory pay and allowances scheduled for various military pay grades. A recruiting officer, whose authority is not in issue at this stage of the case, negotiated with Dr.…