Becky Roberts v. United States
408 U.S. App. D.C. 211
D.C. Cir.2014Background
- Roberts, a Navy Lieutenant Commander, challenged the Board for Correction of Naval Records' refusal to amend fitness reports.
- Her claims included gender discrimination and that ONI/board actions violated the Navy’s promotion guidelines and the APA.
- Key regulations: Bureau Instruction 1610.10 governs trait ratings and promotion recommendations; ONI Instruction 1610.2 provides a baseline promotion guide.
- Early reports (1996–1997) showed Roberts with high trait averages but mixed promotion recommendations, prompting Board review.
- 1999 and 2000 Board denials upheld, with the Board relying on Navy advisory opinions (OLC and EOO).
- Roberts pursued federal suit; district court granted summary judgment for the Government; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| APA review standard sufficiency | Roberts argues deference is improper under Kreis. | Government contends circuit should apply deferential APA review. | Board's action passable under deferential APA review. |
| Due Process entitlement to promotion alignment | ONI/1610.2 baseline creates entitlement to promo per trait average. | Baseline is guidance, not entitlement; promotion still constrained by 1610.10. | No cognizable due process entitlement; no deprivation. |
| Gender discrimination/proof of intent | May 2005 lower Promotable due to gender bias; evidence shows discriminatory intent. | Advisory opinions found no pattern of discrimination; no proof of intent. | Insufficient evidence of gender discrimination; equal protection claim fails. |
| Reliance on advisory opinions | Board rubber-stamped advisory opinions, ignoring other evidence. | Advisory opinions are permissible as part of reasoned decision. | Yes, reliance on advisory opinions reasonable; not arbitrary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kreis v. Sec'y of the Air Force, 866 F.2d 1508 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (unusually deferential APA review for corrections boards)
- Piersall v. Winter, 435 F.3d 319 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (continues deferential approach to military corrections)
- Cone v. Caldera, 223 F.3d 789 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (affirmative evidence-based review framework for corrections boards)
- Dickson v. Sec’y of Def., 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (requirement of reasoned explanation for agency action)
- Mueller v. Winter, 485 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (upholding Board’s reliance on advisory opinions)