Peter R. Henrikson served as a pilot in the Marine Corps Reserve, Air Force, and Air National Guard before transferring to the Air Force Reserve in 2012 as a Generalist Pilot. In 2016, he moved to inactive status and later sought disability retirement based on sinusitis incurred during his service. He petitioned the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records to alter his records to reflect that his sinusitis made him unfit for his position. The Board denied the request, finding that his duties were administrative and did not involve flying, so the sinusitis did not prevent him from performing his job. Henrikson sued in the Court of Federal Claims, which initially remanded the case for further explanation. On remand, the Board again denied the request, and the Claims Court affirmed that decision. Henrikson then appealed to the Federal Circuit, arguing that his role required flying and that the Board's conclusion was arbitrary.
The Federal Circuit applied the arbitrary and capricious standard of review, asking whether the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence. The court rejected Henrikson's primary argument that the Generalist Pilot Air Force Specialty Code required flying. The court noted that the job description distinguishes between 'Duties and Responsibilities' and 'Specialty Qualifications.' While the qualifications required a current aeronautical rating and no permanent disqualification, the duties listed were administrative, such as monitoring flying operations and developing training programs, not piloting aircraft. The court further explained that regulations allow pilots to hold aeronautical ratings while in duties-not-involving-flying status. Additionally, the court found that the 2012 order Henrikson cited, which mentioned flight requirements, had expired before his fitness evaluation began. Finally, the court addressed Henrikson's claim that the lower court relied on subjective duties rather than objective ones. The Federal Circuit clarified that the objective duties listed in the Classification Directory for a Generalist Pilot did not include piloting, providing a sufficient basis for the Board's finding that the position was administrative.
The decision leaves Henrikson's original separation status unchanged and denies his request for disability retirement based on sinusitis. It clarifies that for military personnel in Generalist Pilot roles, the requirement to maintain an aeronautical rating does not equate to a duty to fly. The ruling reinforces that the Board's factual findings regarding the specific duties of a service member's position will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence, even if the service member holds a pilot classification.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download