Kenneth Haselwander v. John McHugh
413 U.S. App. D.C. 302
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- Kenneth Haselwander, a Vietnam veteran, was wounded by a rocket on June 6, 1969; he was treated by medics but left before medical staff completed records, so his Army medical file does not show treatment for wounds sustained in hostile action.
- Haselwander applied to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in 2007 seeking correction of his records to reflect treatment and to obtain the Purple Heart; he submitted a sworn statement, contemporaneous photos showing bandages, and names of witnesses.
- The ABCMR denied the initial application for lack of evidence that he was treated for a wound from enemy action; on reconsideration (2009) it acknowledged witness letters but declined relief because there were no official medical records corroborating the photographs.
- Haselwander sued; the district court granted the Secretary’s summary judgment. He appealed to the D.C. Circuit.
- The D.C. Circuit found the Secretary’s late-raised waiver argument forfeited and concluded the Board’s denial was arbitrary and capricious because it ignored uncontested corroborating evidence and relied solely on the absence of medical records—the very deficiency the Board was empowered to correct.
- The court vacated the ABCMR decision and district-court judgment and remanded for prompt disposition consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Haselwander properly requested correction of medical records / whether claim was waived | Haselwander argued his application and statement put the Board on notice that the record lacked documentation of treatment and needed correction to secure a Purple Heart | Secretary argued Haselwander never requested correction of medical records specifically, so that theory is not before the Board or court | Court: Waiver argument forfeited (not raised below) and meritless — Board reasonably understood he sought correction of records to obtain the Purple Heart |
| Whether the ABCMR acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying correction because no official medical record existed | Haselwander argued contemporaneous photos, witness letters, and unit reports provided uncontested, creditable evidence supporting correction and an award | Secretary/Board relied on absence of official medical treatment entry and said photos alone were insufficient | Court: ABCMR’s rationale was incoherent and arbitrary — it cannot deny relief because the record is missing the very entry the Board is empowered to correct; reversal and remand required |
| Whether evidence submitted sufficed to warrant correction and Purple Heart award | Haselwander: witness letters, unit logs, and photos show wound in hostile action and treatment by medics; Board should correct records and award Purple Heart | Secretary: without medical records, Purple Heart criteria unmet | Court: The Secretary did not contend submissions were discredited; board’s denial lacked reasoned explanation; remand for proper consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Morall v. DEA, 412 F.3d 165 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (agency action arbitrary and capricious standard applied)
- Coburn v. McHugh, 679 F.3d 924 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (agency decisions lacking coherent explanation are unworthy of deference)
- Yee v. United States, 512 F.2d 1383 (Ct. Cl. 1975) (correction boards must remedy injustices clearly presented in the record)
- Allentown Mack Sales & Serv., Inc. v. NLRB, 522 U.S. 359 (1998) (agency decisions require reasoned explanation)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious review principles)
- Tripoli Rocketry Ass'n, Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 437 F.3d 75 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (no deference when agency’s explanation lacks coherence)