ROBINSON v. United States, 1:10-cv-00397

Robinson sued the United States in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims challenging the Air Force’s termination of his medical continuation status.
The court previously denied Robinson’s motion for judgment on the administrative record and granted the Air Force’s cross-motion, finding no arbitrary or unlawful action.
On reconsideration, Robinson asserted that Lt. Col. Wittmann lacked authority to return him to duty and argued AFI 48-123v2 requirements and Air Force Form 422 were not properly considered.
The court sua sponte supplemented the administrative record on June 27, 2011 to illuminate the Air Force’s decision due to an apparently inadequate record.
Air Force Form 422 dated September 10, 2008 reflected updated PULHES ratings and informed the decision to terminate Robinson’s medical continuation status.
The court concluded that Wittmann’s actions and the Form 422 evidence did not warrant relief and denied reconsideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Authority of Wittmann to act	Wittmann had no authority to return Robinson to duty.	Wittmann acted within profile-officer authority reviewed by court.	Authority affirmed; reconsideration denied.
Documentation requirements AFI 48-123v2	Required AFI documents were not considered.	Arguments raised previously; no intervening basis for reconsideration.	No manifest injustice; argument rejected.
Consideration of Air Force Form 422	Form 422 was not part of the record before Air Force when it terminated.	Court may supplement record; Form 422 updated the evidence.	Even if considered, no manifest injustice; decision supported.
Court's authority to supplement the record	Supplementing the record was improper.	Record supplementation necessary for meaningful review.	Court acted within authority; no error warranting reconsideration.

Yuba Natural Res., Inc. v. United States, 904 F.2d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (reconsideration standards and discretionary review)
Prati v. United States, 82 Fed. Cl. 373 (2008) (manifest injustice and reconsideration standards)
Fru-Con Constr. Corp. v. United States, 44 Fed. Cl. 298 (1999) (standard for reconsideration—manifest injustice)
Ammex, Inc. v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 555 (2002) (preclusion of repeated arguments on reconsideration)
Oenga v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. 80 (2011) (RCFC 59 limitations on new arguments)
Four Rivers Invs., Inc. v. United States, 78 Fed. Cl. 662 (2007) (limitations on raising new arguments in motion for reconsideration)
Walls v. United States, 582 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (meaningful review and record adequacy)
Axiom Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (supplementing the administrative record in review)
Envtl. Def. Fund, Inc. v. Costle, 657 F.2d 275 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (scope of agency record and judicial review)
Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (standards for reviewing administrative actions)