By Rick Rogers
DefenseTracker.com

A little case with huge implications is winding its way through federal court back East, where Gary Lambert, a former Marine Corps reserve colonel, is battling his involuntary retirement.

Marine Col. Gary Lambert while deployed in Iraq

Lambert was notified in March 2009 that he was one of 99 colonels selected for early removal from the Reserve Active Status List. A letter told him that, "Those … considered were colonels having at least 3 years time in grade as of July 2009. Of the 254 officers considered, the board selected 99 for early removal."

In October 2009 Lambert filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in New Hampshire against the secretary of the Navy alleging that his separation violated U.S. law and Navy and Marine Corps regulations.

Lambert wants immediate reinstatement to his former rank and his old job back as a reserve staff judge advocate officer at the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force.

A central point of Lambert's complaint is that the pool of colonels reviewed for separation was much smaller than it should have been. By his estimation, about 616 Marine reserve colonels should have been considered, thus lessening his chances of being selected for early retirement.

Lambert claims his early separation, roughly two years before he would have otherwise faced retirement, cost him about $100,000 in unrealized pay and the loss of health and dental coverage for him and his family.

An assistant U.S. attorney for the district of New Hampshire and the Navy have the court to disregard the complaint.

In a January 2010 motion to dismiss, an assistant U.S district attorney wrote that "Adjudication of the claim and provision of the remedies expressly sought necessarily would entangle the court in what is, at bottom, the exercise of the Marine Corps' discretion and judgment in the selection of senior officers for retention."

Further, "At bottom, the selection of colonels for early retirement was based on the selection board's, the Marine Commandant's, and the Secretary of the Navy's subjective assessment of those officers best suited to the United States Marine Corps' needs and mission. The alleged procedural errors of which Col. Lambert complains have no fundamental connection to the very subjective assessment on which the final decisions were made. As such, there is no basis to assume that correction of the alleged procedural errors would have any bearing whatsoever on the final assessment and judgment that his retention did not suit the best interests of the United States Marine Corps."

In other words, this is Navy and Marine Corps business, so butt out.

Asked if this is a potentially precedent-setting case, Lambert, a copyright, trademark and patent attorney in Boston, said:

"Very much so -- Marine Corps hasn't tried to do such a thing since I can remember, and I have been in for over 30 years. They just did not know what they were doing here and they did not do their homework. There is a right and wrong way to do this -- they did it the wrong way,"

"I think I am the first case (of its kind) in over 30 years so no one has tried this before in a very long time," Lambert said. "They violated the law here and it was amazing that they are denying it."

If the suit is successful, it could affect not only the 99 colonels cut, but also how the Marine Corps goes about making future personnel decisions.

"The rumor is that there is another round of cuts coming aimed at active reserve Marines, but the Marine Corps is waiting to see how my case plays out before making those decisions," Lambert said.

Active reserve Marines are reservists placed on active duty. They fill support billets, usually at armories in the United States.

DefenseTracker will continue to follow this case.