Vince v. Mabus, 956 F. Supp. 2d 83

Vince, a USMC veteran, seeks a writ of mandamus to obtain his final discharge documentation from Mabus, Navy Secretary.
This case extends Vince v. Mabus, 852 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2012), which addressed the Board for Correction of Naval Records’ decision to upgrade his discharge.
Vince’s prior actions challenged the Navy’s response to his request for a final DD-214 and the Board’s reliance on a possibly incomplete record.
The Navy had advised in 2007 that Vince did not have a final DD-214 because he had insufficient active service, a matter considered in the prior proceedings.
Vince argues the Navy has a non-discretionary duty to provide a final DD-214, but the court here finds preclusion due to res judicata from the earlier case.
The court dismisses the mandamus petition with prejudice, holding the new claim arises from the same nucleus of facts as the prior litigation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether venue is proper for mandamus claims	Vince argues venue in DC under 28 U.S.C. 1391(e)(1)	Mabus contends venue improper in DC	Venue not dismissal; DC proper per prior practice
Whether the mandamus claim is barred by res judicata	Vince claims new non-discretionary duty justifies a new action	Precludes new suit arising from same nucleus of facts	Granted; res judicata precludes the mandamus claim and requires dismissal with prejudice

Drake v. FAA, 291 F.3d 59 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (same-nucleus-of-facts approach to res judicata in agency actions)
Apotex, Inc. v. FDA, 393 F.3d 210 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (transactional approach to claim preclusion)
Smalls v. United States, 471 F.3d 186 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (same-events/transactional view of res judicata)
Havens v. Mabus, 892 F. Supp. 2d 303 (D.D.C. 2012) (relation between discharge challenge and related proceedings)
Ciralsky v. C.I.A., 355 F.3d 661 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (preclusive effect when relitigating related claims)