Clark v. Department of the Army
2:17-cv-07757
| E.D. La. | Feb 25, 2019Background
- Peggy Jean Clark, former spouse of Ronald Williams (married ~27 years), received a DoD ID card in 2007 under the 20/20/20 former-spouse rule.
- Williams retired under the voluntary early retirement (TERA) program after ~16 years, 6 months, and 2 days of service; Clark later sought verification of 20/20/20 eligibility in 2015.
- The Army Project Office reviewed Clark’s records, concluded she was incorrectly coded as 20/20/20 eligible, and revoked her DoD ID retroactive to December 9, 2015.
- Clark sued for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), seeking summary judgment; the Army moved for summary judgment and filed the administrative record.
- The court reviewed only the administrative record under the APA’s deferential arbitrary-and-capricious standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clark qualified as a 20/20/20 unremarried former spouse | Clark argued TERA early retirement should count as 20 years (or regs read as “at least 15”), citing statutory language about substitution in a different provision | Army argued the administrative record shows Williams had ~16.5 years, so the statutory/regulatory 20-year service requirement is unmet; revocation corrected a prior coding error | Court held Clark did not meet the 20-year service and overlap requirements; revocation was lawful |
| Whether the Army’s revocation was arbitrary and capricious under the APA | Clark argued agency change/unreliability of decision warranted relief | Army relied on record showing an acknowledged prior error and a reasoned correction under applicable regulations | Court held the Army’s action was not arbitrary or capricious and warranted deference |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (materiality and genuine issue standard)
- United Fire & Cas. Co. v. Hixson Bros. Inc., 453 F.3d 283 (view evidence for non-movant)
- McCarty v. Hillstone Rest. Grp., 864 F.3d 354 (strength of summary judgment evidence)
- Alenco Communs., Inc. v. FCC, 201 F.3d 608 (APA review authority)
- Harris v. United States, 19 F.3d 1090 (narrow APA standard)
- City of Abilene v. United States, 325 F.3d 657 (rational relationship test under APA)
- Luminant Generation Co., LLC v. EPA, 714 F.3d 841 (deference to agency decisions under APA)