56 F. Supp. 3d 1
D.D.C.2014Background
- Jackson challenged BCNR's denial to correct his records and reconsideration denials; he sought removal of non-judicial punishment, changes to discharge/reentry codes, and removal of 2006 evaluations.
- BCNR denied Jackson's initial 2007 application; later reconsiderations were denied for lack of new or material evidence, with binder information not considered.
- Jackson submitted post-denial materials (polygraph and investigator report); BCNR remanded to consider but again denied in 2011-2013, stating no new or material evidence.
- Jackson alleged arbitrary and capricious actions by the CO and BCNR, due process violations, and whistleblower-related protections.
- Court remanded and ultimately held BCNR decisions not arbitrary and capricious; CO actions dismissed; summary judgment for BCNR upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BCNR decisions are reviewable under the APA | Jackson argues BCNR decisions are subject to APA review | Mabus contends military corrections decisions are non-justiciable | BCNR decisions are justiciable under the APA |
| Whether the Commanding Officer's actions are reviewable by the court | Court should review CO decisions and evaluations | Military CO judgments are not reviewable by courts | Claims against the CO are not justiciable; dismissed |
| Whether the BCNR denial was arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence | BCNR failed to explain polygraph/new evidence and relied on advisory opinion | BCNR explained why evidence was not new/material and properly used advisory opinions | BCNR's final explanation was adequate; decision not arbitrary or capricious; sustained |
| Whether BCNR violated law by not using equitable powers or by misapplying standards | BCNR improperly refused equitable relief and misapplied 10 U.S.C. § 1552 | Equitable powers are discretionary; no legal violation | No contravention of law; BCNR discretionary in relief determinations |
Key Cases Cited
- Piersall v. Winter, 435 F.3d 319 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (APA review of BCNR decisions permissible)
- Kreis v. Sec'y of Air Force, 866 F.2d 1508 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (Judicial review of military correction boards proper; bias minimal)
- Roberts v. Harvey, 883 F. Supp. 2d 56 (D.D.C. 2012) (Advisory opinions may be relied on in military review boards)
- Mail Order Ass'n of America v. United States Postal Serv., 2 F.3d 407 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (Equitable discretion in agency action)
- Roberts v. United States, 441 F. Supp. 2d 111 (D.D.C. 2006) (Arbitrary and capricious review applicable to military actions)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. N. Am. Coal., 463 U.S. 29, 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (Arbitrary and capricious standard applied)