Army Promotion Policy Ruled Unconstitutional

A federal judge ruled Monday that the Army’s equal opportunity promotion process is unconstitutional and allowed a retired lieutenant colonel to continue with his lawsuit that contends the policy denied him advancement.

Raymond Saunders served in the Army from 1974 until his retirement in 1997. He was twice denied promotions to full colonel.

Such promotions are handled by a selection board, which recommends the top candidates for promotion each year to the Army secretary. The board is guided in its decisions by instructions that include equal opportunity goals.

For instance, the board, after compiling a list of top candidates, must determine whether their promotion would result in comparable advancement rates for all races. If not, the board is to raise the rankings of lower-ranked minority officers if past discrimination is found in their files.

In 1996, the board recommended its top applicants with no adjustments. In 1997, when Saunders applied a second time, the board made one adjustment in the list for a female applicant.

In his suit filed in 1999 against the Army, Saunders claimed that, as a white man, the equal opportunity policies barred him from advancement. He claimed that race and sex targets unconstitutionally guide both the initial rankings of top candidates by the board and the subsequent review of the list.

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth agreed the policies created racial and gender classifications that resulted in preferential treatment of minority and female candidates, during both phases of the board process.

Though Army lawyers argued that the racial classifications were necessary to correct discrimination, Lamberth disagreed.

“The Constitution prohibits the Army from using its policy view to encourage special treatment for minorities and females,” Lamberth said.

The Army argued that Saunders had not suffered because the board made no adjustments in 1996, and he would not have been promoted anyway in 1997. Lamberth denied the Army’s request to dismiss the case, saying its evidence was inadequate.

The judge also denied Saunders’ request for an immediate decision on the Army’s liability, saying Saunders still must prove he was specifically harmed.