Caez v. United States
815 F. Supp. 2d 184
D.D.C.2011Background
- Caez, a former Army Reserve officer, challenged the ABCMR's denial of relief to set aside his involuntary discharge.
- ABCMR denied relief after reviewing Caez's waiver of a BOI hearing and the separation actions.
- Caez sought APA review in district court and moved to supplement the administrative record.
- The Army separated Caez for misconduct and personal issues, including adultery and drug use, and Caez received a GOMOR and an unsatisfactory OER.
- Caez's application, the ABCMR decision, and an initial record were the basis for cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The court granted defendant's summary judgment and denied Caez's motions to supplement the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ABCMR's decision was arbitrary or capricious | Caez argues waiver was involuntary and records show errors | ABCMR properly weighed evidence and found waiver voluntary | ABCMR decision not arbitrary or capricious |
| Whether the October memo should have been disclosed as ex parte communication | Caez claims memo contained new material/ errors | Memo was internal analysis, not ex parte communication | Not required to disclose; proper withholding under 1556(a) |
| Whether Caez's waiver was ineffective due to alleged ineffective assistance of counsel | Caez asserts counsel's advice invalidated waiver | Argument not raised before ABCMR; record review limited to agency record | Dismissed; record review limited to agency record; waiver stands |
| Whether Caez fulfilled requirements to supplement the administrative record | Caez seeks to add documents and affidavits post-record | No material omissions; supplementation not warranted | Denial of motion to supplement affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Neal v. Secy. of the Navy, 639 F.2d 1029 (3d Cir.1981) (ex parte materials; rebuttal rights discussed in a different context)
- Werner v. United States, 226 Ct. Cl. 462, 642 F.2d 404 (Ct. Cl. 1981) (internal memoranda and agency grounds for decision noted)
- Musengo v. White, 286 F.3d 535 (D.C.Cir.2002) (unusually deferential review of military corrections board decisions)
- Kreis v. Sec'y of the Air Force, 866 F.2d 1508 (D.C.Cir.1989) (deferential review standard for military corrections actions)
- Commercial Drapery Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 133 F.3d 1 (D.C.Cir.1998) (review limited to administrative record; exceptions for supplementation are narrow)
- James Madison Ltd. v. Ludwig, 82 F.3d 1085 (D.C.Cir.1996) (limitations on evidence in administrative review)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard for agency action)
- Neal v. Secy. of the Navy, 639 F.2d 1029 (3d Cir.1981) (ex parte communications and agency duty to disclose)