Augustus v. Harvey
825 F. Supp. 2d 245
D.D.C.2011Background
- Pro se plaintiff Alma Augustus, a former Army National Guard Lt. Col., sues Secretary of the Army under APA, FOIA, and Privacy Act claims.
- Plaintiff alleges discrimination and retaliation based on sex and race, and challenges the Army’s handling of Article 138 complaints and EO investigations.
- Plaintiff asserts the ROI (report of investigation) about her discrimination claims substantiates wrongdoing and asks for unredacted ROI under FOIA/Privacy Act.
- Army determined Augustus’s Article 138 complaints deficient under AR 27-10; some complaints returned for deficiencies rather than merits.
- Court grants judgment for Augustus on APA Article 138 processing claims; grants Secretary on Privacy Act claim; and denies FOIA unredacted ROI relief without prejudice, directing redacted ROI with coding system.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Army's handling of Article 138 complaints violate the APA? | Augustus asserts Army failed to follow AR 27-10 20-10 and did not provide written deficiency explanations. | Secretary argues deficiencies were proper and processing complied with regulations. | Yes; Army's failure to provide proper written explanations violated AR 27-10, so APA claim succeeds. |
| Is Augustus entitled to an unredacted Gravett ROI under FOIA/Privacy Act? | ROI contains thousands of redactions; plaintiff seeks unredacted copy under broader Privacy Act/FOIA rights. | Redactions are proper under FOIA exemptions for privacy and law enforcement interests; ROI not adequately demonstrated as improperly redacted. | Denied without prejudice; court requires a redacted ROI with coded designations matching Vaughn index for proper review. |
| Was Gravett ROI maintained in a Privacy Act system of records, enabling Privacy Act claims for access/damages? | ROI was maintained in a Privacy Act system of records (AR600-20 NGB) per Williams memorandum. | Smith Decl. states ROI not maintained in AR600-20 or any Privacy Act system; no retrieval by identifiers established. | Summary judgment for Secretary; ROI not maintained in a Privacy Act system of records. |
| Did the Privacy Act authorize damages for information collection or safeguarding failures? | Defendant collected third-party information, failed to publish system, failed to safeguard data, causing damages. | Plaintiff failed to show a system-of-records or actionable Privacy Act violation; damages require clear, egregious conduct. | Denied; Secretary granted summary judgment on Privacy Act damages claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (material facts must be genuinely in dispute for trial)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; burden to show no genuine disputes)
- Nevada v. Dep’t of Energy, 457 F.3d 78 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (prejudicial error rule in APA review applied)
- PDK Labs. Inc. v. U.S. Drug Enforcement Admin., 362 F.3d 786 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (prejudice rule in agency error assessment for APA review)
- Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (U.S. 1988) (agency action review under APA includes arbitrary, capricious critique)
- Banks v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 700 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 2010) (adequacy of Vaughn index and justifications for redactions)
- Kreis v. Sec’y of Air Force, 866 F.2d 1508 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (military disputes and non-interference principle in Privacy Act context)