Buckingham v. Mabus
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32049
D.D.C.2011Background
- Buckingham received a Navy commission in May 2006 after completing NROTC; in December 2006 he was caught shoplifting at a naval store and placed under military apprehension.
- A February 16, 2007 nonjudicial punishment (NJP) in the form of a punitive letter of reprimand was issued for misconduct and would affect his official record.
- The Navy initiated administrative separation proceedings in June 2007; Buckingham was separated July 27, 2007 with General Discharge (Under Honorable Conditions) and ordered to repay NROTC education benefits valued at $82,841.49.
- Buckingham filed an application with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (the Board) on April 15, 2008 seeking reinstatement or upgrade and debt cancellation, arguing the NJP was rehabilitative and separation excessive.
- The Board denied relief on January 16, 2009; Buckingham then sought judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in district court; the court denied dismissal and granted defendant’s summary judgment while denying Buckingham’s cross-motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board’s decision is reviewable under the APA. | Buckingham contends the Board decision is subject to APA review. | The Board decision is discretionary military relief; review should be limited. | The claim is justiciable under the APA. |
| Whether the Board’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence. | NJP was rehabilitative; separation was excessive. | Board properly weighed mitigation and seriousness of misconduct. | Board decision not arbitrary or unsupported; affirmed summary judgment for defendant. |
| Whether the Board adequately addressed Buckingham’s NJP rehabilitative argument. | Board failed to address the rehabilitative nature of NJP. | Board's discussion and the dispositive conclusion show consideration of equities. | Board adequately addressed the substance of the argument; no reversible error. |
| Whether Buckingham waived certain arguments not raised before the Board. | Arguments about preclusion of subsequent punishment due to NJP were raised for the first time in court. | Waived because not raised during administrative proceedings. | Arguments not raised before the Board are waived and not reviewed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Frizelle v. Slater, 111 F.3d 172 (D.C.Cir. 1997) (APA review with deference to agency findings; must show arbitrary action)
- Mudd v. Caldera, 26 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 1998) (Agency must respond to non-frivolous arguments; substantial evidence standard)
- Kreis v. Sec'y of the Air Force, 866 F.2d 1508 (D.C.Cir. 1989) (Great deference to military discretion; review is narrow)
- Nuclear Energy Inst., Inc. v. EPA, 373 F.3d 1251 (D.C.Cir. 2004) (Issues not raised to agency are waived; strict review of new arguments)
- Piersall v. Winter, 435 F.3d 319 (D.C.Cir. 2006) (Boards for correction of military records reviewable under APA; final agency action)