Manning v. Fanning
211 F. Supp. 3d 129
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Manning (retired Army/Reserve) completed SBP Form 1883 in 1997, listing his paraplegic daughter as sole beneficiary and selecting immediate coverage; form warned the election was permanent and irrevocable.
- Manning later married (2004) and in 2011 attempted to name his wife as beneficiary but was told he could not change the 1997 election.
- In 2012 Manning sought correction from the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to void or alter the 1997 beneficiary election, arguing his daughter did not meet the statutory "dependent child" criteria when he signed the form and that he was misadvised by a unit NCO.
- ABCMR denied relief initially, denied reconsideration, the district court remanded for clarification, and ABCMR again denied correction in 2015; Manning sued in district court challenging the denial and an Army reconsideration regulation (AR15-185).
- The district court reviewed the ABCMR decision under the APA's arbitrary-and-capricious standard, found the Board had given a reasoned explanation and that Manning failed to carry the burden to show the record was erroneous or unjust, and dismissed Manning's claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ABCMR erred in concluding Manning's daughter met the statutory "dependent child" definition | Manning: statute requires all eligible children to have "lived with" the sponsor in a regular parent-child relationship, and his daughter did not at election | Army: statutory text shows "including" introduces examples; daughter is biological offspring and thus qualifies under federal definition | Court: ABCMR correctly applied §1447; daughter qualified and Board's reading was lawful |
| Whether ABCMR should have applied Arizona state law on dependency/custody | Manning: state domestic-relations law governs custody/dependency and should control | Army: SBP is federal; Congress defined "dependent child" in federal statute—state law irrelevant | Court: Federal statutory definition controls; ABCMR correctly declined to apply Arizona law |
| Whether ABCMR acted arbitrarily/capriciously or ignored precedent (including Comptroller General and prior ABCMR decisions) | Manning: Board failed to follow/adequately distinguish precedent and Comptroller General opinion, warranting correction | Army: Board provided reasoned explanations distinguishing or rejecting inapplicable precedents and corrected earlier misapplication where appropriate | Court: ABCMR gave a rational explanation, addressed non-frivolous arguments, and reasonably distinguished prior decisions; not arbitrary or capricious |
| Standing to challenge AR15-185 (regulation limiting reconsideration requests) | Manning: regulation denied further reconsideration and violated due process; requests declaratory/injunctive relief | Army: Manning lacks standing because he never attempted a second reconsideration and cannot show causation or redressability | Held: Manning lacks standing to challenge AR15-185; claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (standing must be affirmatively shown by plaintiff)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing elements and burden across litigation stages)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards; courts need not accept legal conclusions)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (arbitrary and capricious review requires rational connection between facts and agency choice)
- Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138 (agency review focuses on administrative record)
- Kreis v. Secretary of the Air Force, 866 F.2d 1508 (review of military board limited to whether decisionmaking process was deficient)