220 F. Supp. 3d 303
E.D.N.Y2016Background
- Maj. Jason Brezler, a Marine Corps reservist, admitted mishandling classified materials discovered after an NCIS investigation (2012–2013); an administrative inquiry recommended administrative handling.
- After publication of a Marine Corps Times article and Congressman Peter King’s inquiry, Lt. Gen. Richard Mills (Show Cause Authority) convened a Board of Inquiry (BOI) on August 30, 2013; BOI (Dec. 2013) unanimously recommended separation.
- Brezler repeatedly alleged the BOI was retaliatory (stemming from his protected communication to Congressman King) and sought documentary discovery; the Navy denied certain document requests, often treating them as duplicative of pending FOIA requests.
- Military and civilian reviewers endorsed the BOI; Brezler sued under the Administrative Procedure Act seeking vacatur and injunctive relief.
- The district court held it had APA jurisdiction (no exhaustion to BCNR required under Darby), found the Navy violated SECNAVINST 1920.6C’s mandatory discovery requirement by withholding relevant records, vacated the BOI findings, dismissed Mills and the Marine Corps as improper APA defendants, and remanded for a new BOI with production of relevant documents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Justiciability / intramilitary immunity | Brezler: Court may review Navy’s failure to follow mandatory regulations under the APA. | Gov’t: Intramilitary immunity bars judicial review of BOI-related claims. | Court: Intramilitary immunity does not bar APA review of alleged failures to follow mandatory rules. |
| Exhaustion (appeal to BCNR required?) | Brezler: No administrative exhaustion to BCNR is required before APA suit. | Gov’t: Brezler must exhaust internal remedies (BCNR) before seeking judicial relief. | Court: Darby controls; no exhaustion to BCNR required for review of final agency action under the APA. |
| Compliance with Navy discovery regulation (SECNAVINST 1920.6C ¶6(d)) | Brezler: Navy withheld relevant emails/documents (not justified by FOIA overlap), prejudicing his retaliation defense. | Gov’t: Requested materials were duplicative of FOIA, irrelevant to BOI, or not in control of the command; any alleged package predated the article. | Court: Navy violated the mandatory discovery rule by not producing relevant records; denial was arbitrary and capricious. |
| Remedy (scope of relief) | Brezler: Vacatur of BOI and broad relief (including permanent injunction, discovery in district court). | Gov’t: Judicial intrusion into military process should be limited; no basis for broad equitable relief. | Court: Vacated BOI recommendation and remanded to Secretary of the Navy for production of relevant documents and a new BOI; declined to permit district-court discovery or permanent injunction now. |
Key Cases Cited
- Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137 (1993) (APA precludes courts from imposing exhaustion to agency-superior appeals where statute does not require it).
- Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950) (foundational intramilitary-immunity principles).
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (standards for arbitrary and capricious review).
- Blassingame v. Secretary of the Navy, 866 F.2d 556 (2d Cir.) (review of agency compliance with its own regulations; vacatur/remand appropriate for regulatory violations).
- Dilley v. Alexander, 603 F.2d 914 (D.C. Cir.) (courts must ensure military action conforms to statutes and regulations).
- Jones v. New York State Div. of Military & Naval Affairs, 166 F.3d 45 (2d Cir.) (discussing exhaustion in non‑APA military challenges).