## Facts

- Three enlisted Navy members (Dennis R. Beller, James Lee Miller, and Mary Roseann Saal) had otherwise favorable service records but admitted engaging in homosexual acts prohibited by Navy regulations.
- Navy regulations treated homosexual acts as disqualifying conduct requiring administrative separation, subject to limited retention discretion in “rare instances.”
- Each plaintiff was processed through an administrative discharge system that included a hearing before a discharge board, board findings based in part on admissions, and final review by the Secretary.
- Each plaintiff was ordered separated based on the board proceedings and Secretarial review.
- Saal obtained preliminary injunctive relief in district court and partial summary judgment requiring her reenlistment application to be considered without regard to the homosexual-conduct regulations.
- In separate actions, Beller and Miller lost in district court on their constitutional challenges and appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Navy regulations mandating discharge for homosexual acts violate constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection.
2. Whether the administrative discharge procedures and Secretarial review provided constitutionally sufficient procedural due process.
3. Whether courts should defer to military and political-branch judgments in reviewing personnel and discipline policies of this type.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit upheld the Navy regulations and rejected the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges.
- The court affirmed the judgments for the government in Beller’s and Miller’s cases.
- The court reversed the district court’s favorable ruling for Saal and directed entry of judgment for the Secretary.
- The court concluded it could not say constitutional limits were exceeded by the regulation or its application.

## Legal Principles

- Courts afford substantial deference to military judgments concerning discipline, personnel standards, and internal regulation; judicial review focuses on whether the Constitution forbids the policy, not whether the policy is wise.
- Regulations discharging service members for homosexual acts were reviewed under rational-basis principles; homosexual status or conduct was not treated as triggering heightened scrutiny.
- A military personnel regulation satisfies constitutional review if it is rationally related to legitimate military interests, including discipline, morale, and effective functioning under the special demands of military life.
- Procedural due process is satisfied where a service member receives notice of the basis for separation and an opportunity to be heard through administrative board proceedings with subsequent agency review.
- The existence of limited discretionary authority to retain a service member in “rare instances” does not create a constitutional requirement that the Secretary exercise that discretion in particular cases.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that the Navy could constitutionally enforce regulations requiring discharge of enlisted personnel who engaged in homosexual acts, that the administrative discharge process provided adequate due process, and that courts must defer to military policy judgments so long as constitutional boundaries are not crossed.


Beller v. Middendorf, 632 F.2d 788 (9th Cir. 1980)