DiRaffael v. Cal. Army Nat. Guard

Plaintiff and appellant Robert DiRaffael, appearing in propria persona, appeals from the denial of his petition for a writ of mandate directing the California Army National Guard (CAARNG) to vacate an order separating appellant, a commissioned officer, from CAARNG.  Defendants and respondents are CAARNG and four individuals named in appellant’s petition:  David S. Baldwin, California’s Adjutant General; Lawrence A. Haskins, commander of CAARNG; and John D. Ford and Dwight D. Stirling, two officers in CAARNG who purportedly reviewed and supervised the issuance of the separation order.

CAARNG ordered appellant separated pursuant to federal regulations governing selective retention of National Guard officers after 20 years of service.  Appellant argued in his writ petition that the United States Constitution reserved to the states the right to appoint and terminate the appointments of state National Guard officers, and therefore CAARNG could not rely on federal regulations to separate him.  The trial court found that state law incorporated the applicable federal regulations via provisions of the Military and Veterans Code, and thus CAARNG properly could invoke them to separate appellant.

Appellant argues that the trial court erred because (1) the United States Constitution prohibits the Legislature from incorporating the federal regulatory provisions under which CAARNG separated appellant and (2) even if the Legislature could incorporate those provisions, it has not done so.  We reject both propositions.  We further hold that appellant’s claims of purported procedural and evidentiary errors by the trial court lack merit.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

For more information, go to:

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/