The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision against Navy Commander Shelly Frank, who challenged her removal from the Captain promotion list in a case that highlights the military's personnel decision-making authority.
Commander Frank was serving in the U.S. Navy and had been placed on the promotion list for Captain when the Navy removed her following a finding that she had improperly handled a dispute with an enlisted officer. The removal from the promotion list had immediate career consequences for Frank, as Navy regulations required her to retire after 28 years of service as an officer if she had not reached the rank of Captain.
Facing mandatory retirement, Frank filed retirement papers with the Navy approximately four months before completing her full 28 years of qualifying service. As a result, she retired with 27 years, seven months, and 27 days of naval officer service, falling short of the full 28-year mark that would have provided different retirement benefits and recognition.
The case, *Frank v. United States* (Fed. Cir. 2026), originated in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, where Frank filed suit alleging she had been involuntarily retired. In her complaint, Frank sought comprehensive relief including reinstatement in the Navy, return to the Captain promotion list, correction of Navy records relating to the incident with the enlisted officer, and compensatory damages that included backpay and benefits.
The Court of Federal Claims initially ruled against Frank, concluding that her claims lacked merit. The lower court's decision was based on an analysis of military personnel regulations and the Navy's authority to make promotion and retirement decisions based on officer conduct and performance evaluations.
Frank appealed the adverse ruling to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over appeals from the Court of Federal Claims. The case was argued by Wojciech Kornacki from the Pentagon Law Office representing Frank, while the government was represented by Daniel Falknor from the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Justice Department's Civil Division, along with attorneys from the Navy's Judge Advocate General office.
The three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Prost, Chen, and Stark heard oral arguments in the case. Circuit Judge Stark authored the court's opinion, which was decided on Jan. 21, 2026. The court noted in its ruling that the disposition is nonprecedential, meaning it will not serve as binding precedent for future cases.
The Federal Circuit's decision represents a significant setback for Frank's efforts to challenge the Navy's personnel action. Military promotion and retirement cases often involve complex questions about the scope of judicial review over military decision-making, particularly when service members claim their constitutional or statutory rights have been violated.
The case highlights the strict timelines and requirements governing military careers, where failure to achieve promotion within specified timeframes can result in mandatory retirement. For Navy officers, reaching certain ranks within prescribed periods is essential for continued service, and removal from promotion lists can effectively end military careers.
Frank's legal challenge centered on her assertion that she was involuntarily retired, suggesting the Navy's actions were improper or violated her rights. However, the courts at both the trial and appellate levels rejected these arguments, finding that the Navy's personnel decisions were within its authority and properly executed.
The dispute with the enlisted officer that led to Frank's removal from the promotion list was not detailed in the available court documents, but it was significant enough for the Navy to take the drastic step of removing an experienced commander from consideration for promotion to Captain. Such personnel actions typically follow thorough investigations and review processes within the military justice system.
For military personnel facing similar situations, the case demonstrates the challenges of successfully challenging personnel decisions in federal court. Military services maintain broad discretion in promotion and retirement matters, and courts generally defer to military expertise in these areas unless clear violations of law or procedure can be demonstrated.
The Federal Circuit's ruling effectively closes Frank's legal options for challenging her removal from the promotion list and subsequent retirement. Having exhausted her appeals at the Federal Circuit level, Frank would need to petition the Supreme Court for review, though the high court rarely grants certiorari in military personnel cases.
The case serves as a reminder of the high stakes involved in military career progression, where single incidents or decisions can have career-ending consequences for service members who have dedicated decades to military service.