Brent S. Horton v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
BRENT S. HORTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2026-1244
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-00562-SSS, Judge Stephen S. Schwartz.
______________________
Decided: July 8, 2026
______________________
BRENT S. H ORTON, Hampton, VA, pro se.
SEAN K ELLY G RIFFIN, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
WILLIAM J AMES G RIMALDI, P ATRICIA M. MC CARTHY , BRETT
SHUMATE.
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
Case: 26-1244 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 07/08/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

HORTON v. US 2
Brent Horton was separated from the Army and subse-
quently brought an action in the U.S. Court of Federal
Claims (“Claims Court”) challenging his separation and
seeking back pay and other related relief. The Claims
Court granted judgment on the administrative record for
the government. For the reasons explained below, we af-
firm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Horton began serving in the Army in 2002, even-
tually reaching the rank of sergeant first class. On Febru-
ary 15, 2018, an administrative separation board (“Board”)
held a hearing and recommended that he be separated
from the Army with a service characterization of under
other than honorable conditions. S.A. 92.1
The conduct giving rise to Mr. Horton’s separation
mainly concerns domestic incidents involving his wife,
stepdaughter, and stepson. In 2016, Mr. Horton was ar-
rested after breaking into his stepdaughter’s apartment,
unlawfully accessing her computers, and taking over 1,000
pictures of things including her Facebook comments, iden-
tification documents, personal items, and the surroundings
of her apartment. Around the same time, law enforcement
investigated allegations of stalking, threats, and assault
involving Mr. Horton’s wife, stepdaughter, and stepson. In
connection with this conduct, Mr. Horton was charged with
burglary, criminal trespass, computer crime, harassment,
and assault. Ultimately, a jury convicted Mr. Horton of
criminal trespass and computer crime. S.A. 101, 131–32.
Separately, in 2014, allegations arose that Mr. Horton
improperly shot paintballs at fellow soldiers during an
Army training exercise. S.A. 263–69. Following an inves-
tigation, Mr. Horton’s battalion commander imposed non-
judicial punishment, finding Mr. Horton violated Article
1 “S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix filed by
the government.
Case: 26-1244 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 07/08/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

HORTON v. US 3
128 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (“UCMJ”) for
assault. S.A. 256–59.
In 2017, Mr. Horton’s commander initiated administra-
tive separation proceedings under two provisions of Army
regulations: (i) conviction by civil court, Army Reg. 635-200
¶ 14-5 (2016); and (ii) commission of a serious offense, id.
¶ 14-12c. S.A. 150. Ultimately, the Board found that a pre-
ponderance of evidence supported two specifications of con-
viction by civil court and three specifications of commission
of a serious offense. S.A. 129–30. Among the latter, the
Board found that Mr. Horton: (1) assaulted his fellow sol-
diers by shooting them with paintballs; (2) assaulted his
wife, verbally threatened her, and threatened her with a
loaded pistol; and (3) stalked his stepdaughter. Id. The
Board determined that these findings warranted separa-
tion and recommended that Mr. Horton be separated from
the Army. The separation authority approved the Board’s
recommendation and directed Mr. Horton’s discharge un-
der “[¶] 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense.” S.A. 92.
On April 3, 2024, Mr. Horton filed suit in the Claims
Court seeking review of the Army’s separation action, back
pay, and related relief. The Claims Court granted judg-
ment on the administrative record for the government, af-
firming the Board’s decision to separate Mr. Horton.
Mr. Horton timely appeals. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
We review a decision of the Claims Court granting or
denying a motion for judgment on the administrative rec-
ord without deference, applying the same standard of re-
view as the Claims Court. Barnick v. United States,
591 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Under that standard,
we examine the Board’s decision and will not disturb it “un-
less it is arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, or unsup-
ported by substantial evidence.” Chambers v. United
States, 417 F.3d 1218, 1227 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Case: 26-1244 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 07/08/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

HORTON v. US 4
Mr. Horton argues that his separation, based on com-
mission of a serious offense, was wrong because assault
and stalking are not enumerated offenses in the relevant
regulation. See Army Reg. 635-200 ¶ 14-12c(1)–(3).
Mr. Horton misunderstands the regulation, which broadly
defines commission of a serious offense as “[c]ommission of
a serious military or civil offense, if the specific circum-
stances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive
discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a
closely related offense under the [Manual for Courts-Mar-
tial (‘MCM’)].” Id. ¶ 14-12c. The regulation includes cer-
tain examples, such as those listed in subparts (1) to (3),
but does not enumerate all offenses that could constitute
commission of a serious offense.
Both assault and stalking are offenses that fall within
the regulation. The MCM lists both as offenses and author-
izes a punitive discharge for each. MCM Part IV ¶ 54(e)(2),
54(e)(8)(a) (2016) (authorizing punitive discharge for vio-
lating UCMJ Article 128 (Assault)); id. ¶ 45a(e) (authoriz-
ing punitive discharge for UCMJ Article 120a (Stalking)).
Mr. Horton does not dispute the factual basis for the of-
fenses underlying his discharge for commission of a serious
offense under ¶ 14-12c, including assaulting his fellow sol-
diers and wife and stalking his stepdaughter. Thus,
Mr. Horton’s assault and stalking offenses support his dis-
charge under ¶ 14-12c.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Horton’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea-
sons, we affirm the Claims Court’s decision.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 26-1244 Document: 25 Page: 4 Filed: 07/08/2026

-- 4 of 4 --