Remmie v. Mabus, 898 F. Supp. 2d 108

Remmie enlisted in the Navy in 1978 and was involuntarily discharged in 1993 after his ex-wife alleged abuse of their daughter, an allegation later found unsubstantiated.
In 1999, Remmie was allowed to reenlist and served until retirement in 2006, following a 1997–1998 BCNR partial relief decision.
Remmie pursued BCNR relief for years, including removal from the Central Registry and retroactive promotions; the 2008 BCNR decision largely denied his requests beyond removing his name from the Registry.
Remmie filed suit under the Administrative Procedure Act in 2011 challenging the BCNR’s 2008 decision; the district court dismissed some claims and later allowed injunctive relief in part.
In 2012, the court remanded for further explanation, holding the BCNR failed to provide adequate reasons under 5 U.S.C. § 555(e) for denying relief and to articulate why certain matters were outside its purview.
Plaintiff’s remaining claim upon remand is for remand to the BCNR for reconsideration; no direct money damages are sought in the pending APA claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the case falls within Tucker Act jurisdiction	Remmie seeks equitable relief; otherwise money damages would exceed $10,000.	Suit is an excess of $10,000 money-damages claim within Tucker Act.	Court has jurisdiction; claim seeks equitable relief, not money damages.
Standard of review under the APA	Board failed to apply appropriate standards and ignore new material evidence.	Board properly applied its regulations and limitations.	Ordinary APA standard applies; not the highly deferential military-expertise standard.
Whether the BCNR adequately explained its denial under § 555(e)	Board failed to provide a minimal explanation about why relief was denied or outside purview.	Board's reasons were sufficient under the reconsideration framework.	Remand required for a more complete explanation of why relief was outside purview and why reconsideration was not warranted.
Whether the Board properly treated new and material evidence and other matters	The 2007 petition raised diverse new requests and evidence; the Board did not address them with new-material-evidence standard.	The Board properly determined certain requests were outside its purview or not supported by new material evidence.	Remand to provide adequate reasoning for its determinations on new-material evidence and scope.

Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F.3d 1111 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (plaintiff bears burden on jurisdictional facts; grant of inferences)
Jerome Stevens Pharms., Inc. v. FDA, 402 F.3d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (limits on treating legal conclusions as factual allegations)
Tourus Records, Inc. v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 259 F.3d 731 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (§ 555(e) minimal requirement; need for reasoned denial)
Dickson v. Sec’y of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (prohibition on simply parroting statutory language; require explanation)
Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (Supreme Court 1962) (agency decisions require justification for action taken)
Smalls v. United States, 471 F.3d 186 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (money-damages inquiry in Tucker Act context; equitable relief still subject to jurisdictional rules)
Kidwell v. Dep’t of the Army, Bd. for Corr. of Military Records, 56 F.3d 279 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (bright-line test for Tucker Act jurisdiction based on monetary relief)
Kreis v. Sec’y of Air Force, 406 F.3d 684 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (distinguishes deferential military-judgment review from APA review of procedural rules)
Kreis v. Sec’y of Air Force, 866 F.2d 1508 (D.C. Cir. 1989), 866 F.2d 1508 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (early articulation of deferential standard for corrections boards)