## Facts

- Samuel W. Koster, a retired Army officer, commanded the 23rd Infantry (“Americal”) Division in Vietnam during 1967–1968 and later retired in the permanent rank of brigadier general.
- After the March 16, 1968 My Lai killings by elements of his division, the Army investigated Koster’s command response and his handling of information and follow-on inquiries; he was not accused of participating in the killings.
- In 1970, court-martial charges (including UCMJ art. 92 allegations) were preferred but later dismissed.
- The Army imposed administrative actions instead of a court-martial: vacated Koster’s temporary promotion to major general, issued a formal letter of censure, and withdrew his Distinguished Service Medal.
- These actions affected his retirement grade and pay; Koster claimed he would otherwise have been advanced or retired at the higher grade of major general.
- The Secretary of the Army upheld the actions and the retirement-grade determination.
- Koster petitioned the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for relief; the ABCMR (March 12, 1980) sustained the sanctions and declined to change his retired grade.
- Koster sued in the United States Court of Claims; the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the ABCMR acted arbitrarily, capriciously, without substantial evidence, or contrary to law in refusing to remove or modify the administrative sanctions (vacation of temporary grade, censure, and award revocation).
2. Whether the ABCMR legally erred in concluding Koster did not serve “satisfactorily” in the higher grade so as to retire as a major general with corresponding pay.
3. What level of judicial deference applies to ABCMR determinations involving military discipline and retirement-grade judgments.

## Decision

- The court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment and denied Koster’s cross-motion.
- The court upheld the ABCMR’s March 12, 1980 decision sustaining the administrative sanctions and retaining Koster’s retired grade as brigadier general.
- The court concluded it could not overturn the ABCMR because the Board’s determinations were supported by the administrative record and were not unlawful under the governing standard of review.

## Legal Principles

- ABCMR decisions are presumptively valid and are set aside only if arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to law.
- Courts generally will not reweigh military judgments on discipline, command responsibility, awards, and fitness determinations when the correction board has considered the matter and explained its decision on an adequate record.
- Retirement at the highest grade held depends on “satisfactory” service in that grade; the military may find higher-grade service unsatisfactory based on command-level failures even absent personal participation in underlying misconduct.
- Administrative measures such as vacating a temporary grade, issuing a letter of censure, and withdrawing an award may be sustained when within military authority and rationally supported by the record, even if court-martial charges were dismissed.
- A plaintiff seeking record correction must show a legal entitlement or a reviewable defect under the deferential standard; disagreement with the merits of the military’s assessment is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The Court of Claims affirmed the ABCMR’s refusal to remove Army administrative sanctions arising from Koster’s command response to My Lai and upheld his retirement as a brigadier general, holding that the Board’s determinations were lawful and supported by substantial evidence under a highly deferential standard of review.


Koster v. United States, 231 Ct. Cl. 301 (1982)