Hugh McKinney v. Christine Wormuth
5f4th42
| D.C. Cir. | 2021Background
- Sgt. 1st Class (Ret.) Hugh McKinney sought a Purple Heart for a documented October 2005 IED blast near his Humvee in Iraq; he reported brief loss of awareness soon after and submitted contemporaneous and later statements plus medical opinions linking a traumatic brain injury (TBI) to that blast.
- McKinney never received medical treatment in Iraq for the incident; no contemporaneous medical record documents treatment for a TBI from that event.
- VA evaluations later found McKinney service‑connected and 100% disabled; Dr. DeLeon attributed McKinney’s TBI (and possibly a later stroke) to the October 2005 blast, while an Army reviewer, Dr. Sullivan, concluded the TBI more likely reflected cumulative concussive exposures.
- Army Human Resources Command denied the Purple Heart for lack of documented medical treatment causally tied to the October 2005 incident; the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (the Board) affirmed, crediting the contemporaneous statement and Dr. Sullivan’s cumulative‑effect opinion.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Army under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA); the D.C. Circuit reviewed de novo and applied a highly deferential arbitrary‑and‑capricious standard and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying the Purple Heart where no contemporaneous medical treatment was documented | McKinney: contemporaneous statement, unit witness, and VA/Dr. DeLeon medical opinion tie the TBI to the Oct. 2005 blast and suffice | Army: no medical‑officer treatment documented for that event; record and Army reviewer show cumulative exposures, not a single qualifying event | Court: Affirmed—Board reasonably credited contemporaneous statement and Dr. Sullivan; no sufficient evidence of a qualifying injury from Oct. 2005 |
| Whether the substantial‑evidence standard applied instead of arbitrary and capricious review | McKinney: substantial‑evidence review should govern | Army: informally adjudicated Board decision is reviewed for arbitrary and capriciousness | Court: Arbitrary‑and‑capricious standard applies; substantial‑evidence review applies only to formal adjudications |
| Whether the Board’s short explanation was adequate under the APA | McKinney: Board’s analysis was too terse/boilerplate to permit review | Army: Board provided a minimal rational connection between facts and decision | Court: Board’s concise reasoning met APA minima and was adequate for review |
| Whether the Board applied the correct burden of proof | McKinney: Board failed to correct an injustice despite VA findings | Army: applicant bears the burden to prove error/injustice by preponderance; presumption of regularity applies | Court: Board applied correct burden; McKinney failed to overcome presumption |
Key Cases Cited
- Haselwander v. McHugh, 774 F.3d 990 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (arbitrary and capricious standard governs correction of military records)
- Kidwell v. Dep't of the Army, 56 F.3d 279 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (district court summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- Kreis v. Sec'y of the Air Force, 866 F.2d 1508 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (explains unusually deferential review of military record corrections)
- Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1953) (judicial review limited; courts not to substitute their judgment for military decisions)
- Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. v. NLRB, 865 F.3d 630 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (agency must confront contrary evidence)
- Dickson v. Sec'y of Def., 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (agency need only make a minimal analytic connection between facts and choice)
- Phoenix Herpetological Soc'y v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 998 F.3d 999 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (substantial‑evidence review applies only to formal adjudications)