103 F. Supp. 3d 95
D.D.C.2015Background
- Carl Foster, a retired Marine and long‑time MCJROTC instructor at Amite High School, was decertified by TECOM in July 2010 after allegations he twice misused funds, disobeyed an order, and showed insubordination. Prior decade of generally ‘Outstanding’ evaluations preceded disputes with new SMI Lt. Col. Ronald Bias and Regional Director Mark H. Stroman.
- Two incidents prompted the investigation: (1) a 2009 cross‑country training trip that included some non‑MCJROTC students and was questioned as improper use of government funds; and (2) a February 2010 concession‑stand purchase that resulted in a $197.50 debit from the MCJROTC activity account which the principal characterized as a clerical error.
- Initial TECOM review in January 2010 declined to decertify Foster but imposed a counseling statement restricting his authority and duties. Stroman and Bias continued to press for decertification.
- After this Court vacated the original decertification in Foster I (finding the agency’s explanation insufficient), TECOM reconsidered, conducted further reviews (including a polygraph and private investigation), and again denied recertification in 2014, relying on findings that Foster misused funds and disobeyed orders.
- On renewed review, the District Court granted Foster’s motion for summary judgment, holding TECOM’s decision arbitrary and capricious principally because the agency failed to consider an important aspect of the problem: documented evidence of Stroman and Bias’s predisposition and possible retaliatory motive against Foster.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCJROTC decertification is reviewable under APA | Foster contended the decision is subject to APA review | Defendants did not successfully dispute reviewability | Court treated the decision as reviewable under the APA (as in Foster I) |
| Whether TECOM provided a reasoned explanation supported by the record (arbitrary & capricious) | Foster argued TECOM failed to supply a rational connection between facts and decision and ignored contrary evidence | TECOM argued deference is warranted and its operational judgment should stand | Court held TECOM’s decision arbitrary and capricious for inadequate explanation and failure to address contradictory evidence |
| Whether agency considered evidence of bias/retaliation by Bias and Stroman | Foster argued record showed predisposition and retaliatory motive that TECOM ignored | TECOM treated plaintiff’s allegations as collateral and rejected them as irrelevant | Court held agency failed to consider an important aspect—documented bias—requiring vacatur and remand |
| Degree of judicial deference to military personnel decisions | Foster said JROTC certification is not an operational military decision deserving special deference | TECOM urged heightened deference to military judgments affecting program objectives | Court assumed deference need not change outcome: even under heightened deference agency’s failure to consider bias made decision unlawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (agency must show rational connection between facts and choice)
- Am. Bioscience, Inc. v. Thompson, 269 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir.) (district court in APA case sits as an appellate tribunal)
- Haselwander v. McHugh, 774 F.3d 990 (D.C. Cir.) (agency decision may be vacated when it is devoid of evidentiary support or reasoned decisionmaking)
- Butte County v. Hogen, 613 F.3d 190 (D.C. Cir.) (agency must consider evidence bearing on the issue and cannot ignore contradictory evidence)
- Ass’n of Data Processing Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys., 745 F.2d 677 (D.C. Cir.) (substantial evidence standard and arbitrary/capricious review overlap)