Williams v. Fanning, 63 F. Supp. 3d 88

Background

Marcus L. Williams, a former Air Force Staff Sergeant, was convicted at court-martial and ultimately received a Dishonorable Discharge executed August 30, 2004, with an effective separation date of October 1, 2004.
Williams received an erroneous DFAS e-mail stating he had a Bad Conduct Discharge effective May 3, 2002, and sent a Privacy Act request to the Air Force seeking source documents corroborating a May 3, 2002 Bad Conduct Discharge (e.g., GCMO No. 8, separation form, DD-214).
The Air Force contends it only learned of Williams’s Privacy Act request after suit was filed and then searched its two relevant databases: AMJAMS (military-justice records) and ARMS (personnel records for separations on/after Oct. 1, 2004).
Air Force searches located records showing a Dishonorable Discharge (2002 GCMO referencing dishonorable discharge and 2004 execution documents) but found no documents supporting a 2002 Bad Conduct Discharge; some other records were released to Williams.
Williams sued under the Privacy Act claiming an inadequate search; the Air Force moved for summary judgment arguing its searches were reasonable and would have yielded a "no records" response had it received the request outside litigation.
The Court found the agency declarations detailed and credible, held the searches reasonable and adequate, denied Williams’s summary judgment motion, and granted summary judgment for the Air Force.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Air Force conducted a reasonable search under the Privacy Act	Williams contends the Air Force failed to perform a reasonable search and did not produce requested documents corroborating a 2002 Bad Conduct Discharge	Air Force says it searched the appropriate databases (AMJAMS and ARMS) using name/SSN, found records showing a Dishonorable Discharge, and located no 2002 Bad Conduct Discharge records	The Court held the searches were reasonable and adequate; summary judgment for the Air Force
Whether DFAS’s erroneous e-mail creates an obligation on Air Force to produce documents it does not possess	Williams argues DFAS’s e-mail indicates the Air Force must have produced a 2002 Bad Conduct Discharge document	Air Force explains DFAS is a separate entity, DFAS’s e-mail was inaccurate, and the Air Force has no such source documents	The Court accepted the Air Force explanation and found no basis to infer missing Air Force records
Whether speculative assertions rebut agency declarations of good faith	Williams offers belief/speculation that searches were not done or records exist	Air Force relies on detailed, sworn declarations describing search scope and results	The Court applied the presumption of agency good faith and rejected purely speculative claims
Whether prior adjudications about separation date preclude Williams’s arguments that the Air Force should have searched additional files	Williams sought to revisit separation date and argued another database should be searched for pre-2004 records	Air Force and Court note the separation date (Oct. 1, 2004) was previously adjudicated; searching pre-2004 databases was unnecessary	The Court declined Williams’s attempt to relitigate separation date and denied his leave motions

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting)
Truitt v. Department of State, 897 F.2d 540 (agency must show search reasonably calculated to uncover records)
Ground Saucer Watch, Inc. v. CIA, 692 F.2d 770 (agency affidavits presumed in good faith; nonconclusory affidavits required)
SafeCard Services, Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (purely speculative claims cannot rebut agency good-faith affidavits)
Weisberg v. DOJ, 745 F.2d 1476 (issue is adequacy of search, not existence of other documents)
Hodge v. FBI, 703 F.3d 575 (speculation does not undermine reasonable search finding)
Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (preclusion principles)