Coburn v. McHugh

• Citation: 77 F.Supp.3d 24
• Decision Date: 30 December 2014
• Docket Number: Civil Case No. 09–01266 RJL
• Parties: Trent M. Coburn, Plaintiff, v. John McHugh, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

77 F.Supp.3d 24

Trent M. Coburn, Plaintiff

v.John McHugh, Defendant.

Civil Case No. 09–01266 RJL

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed December 30, 2014

David Patrick Sheldon, Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, P.L.L.C., Washington, DC, Raymond J. Toney, The Law Office of Raymond J. Toney, Woodland, CA, for Plaintiff.

Wayne Holden Williams, U.S. Attorney's Office, John J. Gowel, United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

[Dkt. ## 32, 37]

RICHARD J. LEON, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Trent M. Coburn (“plaintiff” or “Coburn”) brought this action against John M. McHugh (“Secretary”),¹ in his official capacity as Secretary of the Army, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., on July 7, 2009,² seeking judicial review of final decisions of the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records (“ABCMR”) denying plaintiff's applications to correct his military records to show that he retired from the U.S. Army. See Am. Compl. ¶ 1. Now before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. See Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J. [Dkt. # 32]; Def.'s Cross–Mot. Summ. J. [Dkt. # 37]. Upon consideration of the parties' pleadings, relevant law, and the entire record in this case, the Court GRANTS defendant's Cross–Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff enlisted in the Army on November 6, 1984. See Am. Compl. ¶ 16; Administrative Record (“AR”) at 311 [Dkt. # 7]. On March 24, 2000, an Article 15 nonjudicial punishment hearing was convened, charging plaintiff with violating Article 112a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (“UCMJ”). See Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of his Motion for Summary Judgment (“Pl.'s Mem.”) at 7 [Dkt. # 32–1]; AR 84–85. The charge was based on a positive drug test in early 2000, indicating that plaintiff had used marijuana. See Am. Compl. ¶ 1; AR 136–139. Plaintiff pled not-guilty to the charge, but was nonetheless found guilty by his commanding officer. See Pl.'s Mem. at 7–8; AR at 84–85.

On August 20, 2000, plaintiff was issued a negative non-commissioned officer evaluation report (“NCOER”) based upon the failed urinalysis and the subsequent Article 15 finding of guilt. See PL's Mem. at 8; AR at 86. As a result, the Army ordered plaintiff to undergo an administrative discharge board to determine whether he would be allowed to remain in the Army. See PL's Mem. at 8; AR at 88. The administrative discharge board found that “the allegation that [plaintiff] wrongfully used marijuana [was] not supported by a preponderance of the evidence,” and recommended that plaintiff “be retained in the [Army].” AR at 88.

Based on the administrative discharge board's findings and recommendations, plaintiff sought to have the Article 15 charge set aside. See AR 89–95. Plaintiff's attempts, however, were unsuccessful. On April 20, 2001, the Army informed plaintiff that—based on the Article 15 charge and the August 20, 2000 NCOER—he had been selected for denial of continued Army service under the Qualitative Management Program (“QMP”), pursuant to Army regulation 635–200, Chapter 19. See PL's Mem. at 9; AR at 97–99.

In June 2002, plaintiff was given an updated permanent physical profile listing plaintiff's various ailments and initiating a Medical Evaluation Board (“MEB”). See PL's Mem at 9; AR at 338. MEBs are employed “to document a Soldier's medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by the Soldier's status.” See Army Reg. 635–40, Ch. 4–10. MEBs rely in substantial part on a narrative summary or “NARSUM” detailing the “history of the Soldier's illness, objective findings on examination” and the “subjective conclusions” of the treating professionals. See Army Reg. 635–40, Ch. 4–11. Although plaintiff was referred to an MEB, the record does not indicate that a NARSUM was ever completed. See Supplemental Administrative Record (“AR2”) at 871 [Dkt. # 45]. Nor does the record indicate that an MEB was formally empaneled. AR2 at 872.

Plaintiff underwent an MEB medical examination on July 8, 2002. See PL's Mem. at 10; AR 353–59. On the same day that orders were published directing plaintiff's discharge from the Army, plaintiff's treating physician—Dr. Caycedo—examined plaintiff's medical records and the results of his most recent clinical visits with Dr. Schirner, Dr. Caycedo's supervisor, and decided to terminate plaintiff's MEB processing. See Pl.'s Mem. at 11; AR at 65; Declaration of Doctor (Major) Mario Caycedo (“Caycedo Decl.”) ¶ 2(1–m) [Dkt. # 6–4]. On October 30, 2002, plaintiff was involuntarily separated from the Army under the QMP. See Am. Compl. ¶ 1; Pl.'s Mem. at 12; AR at 36, 38.

Plaintiff has petitioned the ABCMR on three separate occasions since his separation from the Army. See AR at 72–83; id. at 33–39; id. at 4–20. The ABCMR denied all three of plaintiff s applications. See AR at 71–79; id. at 33–39; id. at 1–7. Plaintiff filed this action on July 7, 2009, seeking review of the ABCMR denials. See Compl. On September 29, 2010, I granted summary judgment in favor of defendant and dismissed the case. See Memorandum Opinion and Order [Dkt. ## 20, 21]. Plaintiff appealed the judgment to our Court of Appeals on October 19, 2010. See Notice of Appeal [Dkt. # 22]. On May 25, 2012, our Circuit Court affirmed in part, and vacated in part, this Court's September 29, 2010 decision, and ordered the case remanded to the ABCMR for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.See Coburn v. McHugh, 679 F.3d 924 (D.C.Cir.2012). The Court of Appeals directed the ABCMR to address certain specific questions on remand.³ See id. at 935. On June 25, 2013, the ABCMR rendered its decision on remand.⁴ See AR2 at 959–71. The parties then moved to complete briefing on their cross-motions for summary judgment before this Court, which became ripe on August 27, 2014. See Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J.; Def.'s Cross–Mot. Summ. J.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence in the record demonstrates that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a) ; see, e.g., Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). When evaluating cross motions for summary judgment, “the court shall grant summary judgment only if one of the moving parties is entitled to judgment as a matter of law upon material facts that are not genuinely disputed.” GCI Health Care Ctrs., Inc. v. Thompson, 209 F.Supp.2d 63, 67–68 (D.D.C.2002) (citations omitted). The court must accept as true the evidence of, and draw “all justifiable inferences” in favor of, the party opposing summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A genuine issue exists only where “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

When reviewing the decision of an administrative body pursuant to the APA, the reviewing court generally will not resolve factual disputes, but instead reviews the decision as an appellate court addressing issues of law. See James Madison Ltd. v. Ludwig, 82 F.3d 1085, 1096 (D.C.Cir.1996) ; Atlantic Sea Island Grp. LLC v. Connaughton, 592 F.Supp.2d 1, 12–13 (D.D.C.2008). The APA permits a reviewing court to set aside agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) ; see also Tourus Records, Inc. v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 259 F.3d 731, 736 (D.C.Cir.2001).

An agency action is arbitrary and capricious if the agency has failed to follow procedures required by law or if it has entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the issue. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) ; Kisser v. Cisneros, 14 F.3d 615, 618–19 (D.C.Cir.1994) (“We may reverse only if the agency's decision is not supported by substantial evidence, or the agency has made a clear error in judgment.” (quoting Citizens to Pres. Overton Park Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 415, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971) )). At a minimum, that standard requires the agency to consider relevant data and articulate an explanation from which “[its] path may reasonably be discerned,” even if the explanation itself is not “a model of analytic precision.” Dickson v. Sec'y of Def., 68 F.3d 1396, 1404 (D.C.Cir.1995) (quoting Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas–Best Freight Sys., 419 U.S. 281, 286, 95 S.Ct. 438, 42 L.Ed.2d 447 (1974) ). Thus, a reviewing court “will not disturb the decision of an agency that has ‘examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’ ” MD Pharm., Inc. v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 133 F.3d 8, 16 (D.C.Cir.1998) (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n, 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856 ). In short, the agency's decision is “entitled to a presumption of regularity.” Escobedo v. Green, 602 F.Supp.2d 244, 248 (D.D.C.2009) (quoting Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 415, 91 S.Ct. 814 ).

When reviewing a decision of the ABCMR, courts must employ “an ‘unusually deferential application of the ‘arbitrary or capricious' standard’ of the [APA].” Cone v. Caldera, 223 F.3d 789, 793 (D.C.Cir.2000) (quoting Kreis v. Sec'y of the Air Force, 866 F.2d 1508, 1514 (D.C.Cir.1989) ).⁵ An ABCMR decision thus cannot be considered arbitrary or capricious if it “minimally contain[s] a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” Frizelle v. Slater, 111 F.3d 172, 176 (D.C.Cir.1997) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). For a plaintiff to overcome the strong presumption that the military administrators discharged their duties...