Crooks v. Mabus, Civil Action No. 13–1614 BAH

• Decision Date: 20 May 2015
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 13–1614 BAH
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
• Parties: Michael Crooks, Plaintiff, v. Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, et al., Defendants.

104 F.Supp.3d 86

Michael Crooks, Plaintiff,

v.Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 13–1614 BAH

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed May 20, 2015

John B. Wells, Law Offices of John B. Wells, Slidell, LA, for Plaintiff.

Fred Elmore Haynes, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BERYL A. HOWELL, United States District Judge

Pending before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment from the plaintiff, retired Marine Corps Major Michael Crooks, and the defendants, the Secretary of the Navy and Rear Admiral Dee Mewbourne of the U.S. Naval Service Training Command (“NSTC”). Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J. (“Pl.'s Mot.”) at 1, ECF No. 23; Defs.' Mot. Summ J. (“Defs.' Mot.”) at 1, ECF No. 25. The plaintiff claims he was wrongfully decertified as an instructor in the Navy Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (“NJROTC”) by the defendant, and seeks vacatur of that decision and reinstatement. See generally,Compl., ECF No. 1. For the reasons set forth below, the defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted and the plaintiff's motion is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

Instructors in the NJROTC program are employees of the school districts in which their units operate as well as responsible to the Navy. SeeDefs.' Mem. Supp. Defs.' Mot. (“Defs.' Mem.”) at 5, ECF No. 25. Although the instructors are actually school employees, they are only allowed to remain NJROTC instructors if they retain a valid certification issued by the Navy. See id.Thus, a brief summary of the statutory grounds for certification and decertification as an NJROTC instructor is provided before addressing the factual circumstances specific to this matter.

A. The NJROTC Program

Congress has mandated that “each military department ... establish and maintain a Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps ... at public and private secondary educational institutions which apply for a unit and meet the standards and criteria prescribed” by law. 10 U.S.C. § 2031(a)(1). The Corps' purpose is “to instill in students ... the values of citizenship, service to the United States, and personal responsibility and a sense of accomplishment.” Id.§ 2031(a)(2). The Secretary for each branch of service is mandated to (1) “detail officers and noncommissioned officers ... as administrators and instructors,” id.§ 2031(c)(1); (2) “provide necessary text materials, equipment, and uniforms,” id.§ 2031(c)(2); and (3) “establish minimum acceptable standards for performance and achievement for qualified units,” id.§ 2031(c)(3). Each Secretary is further required to coordinate administration of the Corps in a “manner that is designed to maximize enrollment in the Corps and to enhance administrative efficiency in the management of the Corps.” Id.§ 2032(a). Regardless of branch of service, each JROTC instructor “must be certified by the Secretary” of that branch “as a qualified instructor in leadership, wellness and fitness, civics, and other courses related to the content of the program.” Id.§ 2033(a). Senior Military Instructors (“SMIs”) must be “retired officers of the armed forces and ... serve as instructional leaders who oversee the program.” Id.§ 2033(b)(1).

The specific regulations controlling NJROTC are contained in CNETINST 1533.9K, a 116–page document detailing everything from the organization of NJROTC units and the enrollment of students to information technology and marksmanship training. See generallyCNETINST 1533.9K, “Regulations Governing Administration of the Naval Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps (NJROTC)” (“NJROTC Regs.”). The document lists five instances where certification of a NJROTC instructor “will be revoked:”

a. If the school dismisses the [instructor] or fails to renew the instructors [sic] contract for cause, b. If an instructor resigns without proper notice and without reasonable justification, c. If an instructor resigns while under investigation or to avoid investigation, or d. If an instructor resigns after being advised that their performance will be reviewed by an NJROTC Instructor Certification Board to consider continued certification, or e. Upon consideration of the conduct, performance, and evaluations of an [instructor] by the school and/or designated inspectors, CNET determines that continued certification of the instructor is not in the best interests of the program.

NJROTC Regs. §§ 413(a)–413(e). “An instructor whose certification is revoked under any of the foregoing circumstances may request a review of their case by an NJROTC Instructor Certification Board ... within 1 year after revocation of certification.” Id.§ 413(f). As this Court has held previously, “the subjective nature of decertification decisions ... impart[s] considerable discretion upon the ... Navy.” Foster v. Mabus,895 F.Supp.2d 135, 146 (D.D.C.2012). With this context, the factual circumstances unique to this matter are related below.

B. The Plaintiff's Tenure And Decertification

The plaintiff, Michael Crooks, retired from the Marine Corps in 1994 as a Major “after 20 years of honorable service.” Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Pl.'s Mot. (“Pl.'s Mem.”) at 1, ECF No. 23–2. Shortly before his retirement from active duty, the plaintiff was “certified by the Navy's Chief of Naval Education and Training [ (“CNET”) ] as a [NJROTC] instructor.” Id. From August 1995 through January 2008, the plaintiff was employed as the SNI at Pearl River High School in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. Id.at 1–2. The plaintiff received generally positive evaluations, until the 2007–2008 school year. Administrative Record (“AR”) at 8–26.¹

Beginning in the 2006–2007 school year, the record indicates that the relationship between the school administration and the plaintiff began to grow strained. SeeAR at 308. In an undated letter summarizing the plaintiff's 2006–2008 tenure at the school, sent to a NJROTC Certification Board, the Principal noted a “constant decline in the number of participants in the NJROTC program” that had been continuing “over the past years” and that the Principal believed threatened the continued viability of the program. Id.The Principal attributed the “primary cause” for the program's declining attendance to “the manner in which [the plaintiff] interfaced with cadets in the program.” Id.In the Principal's view, the plaintiff acted “in the manner of a drill sergeant” by “on numerous occasions, verbally abus[ing] and berat[ing] cadets and non-cadets,” such that the Principal felt the need to “counsel[ the plaintiff] about his attitude and confrontational manner.” Id.

The Principal's letter goes on to note that the plaintiff's attitude and declining enrollment were not the only issues he had with the plaintiff. Id.at 309. In 2006–2007, the Principal averred that the plaintiff “did not turn in his lesson plans for August, September or October 2006” despite repeated requests and that “Cadets and their parents” alleged that the plaintiff “was not teaching the approved Navy curriculum but topics that he only had an apparent interest in, such as Suicidal Hand Wringing, Gay Marriage and Black Rednecks and White Liberals.” Id.

The plaintiff disputes this claim, stating that his lesson plans were posted in the school's new computer system “in a timely manner based on the instructions he was provided” and that the curriculum taught by the plaintiff “is included in the Administrative Record.” Pl.'s Opp'n Defs.' Mot. (“Pl.'s Opp'n”) at 3, ECF No. 36 (citing AR 197, 257–266). In support of this contention, the plaintiff cites the results of a polygraph test administered to the plaintiff at the plaintiff's counsel's behest stating that the plaintiff asserted truthfully that he did not “intentionally misstate ... that [his] lesson plans were posted on the school web site [sic] in a timely manner.” AR at 196–97. The record contains a summary of the courses taught in the NJROTC program during the 2007–2008 school year, which makes no reference to the “Suicidal Hand Wringing” mentioned in the Principal's statement. Seeid.at 257–66. Nevertheless, the curriculum does state that Mondays are designated as “Current Events Day,” id.at 258, and the Principal indicated in his letter that he viewed this teaching of Current Events as “unacceptable teaching” and ordered him “to cease teaching his eclectic ‘current events' classes in lieu of the Navy curriculum,” id.at 309.

Moreover, the Principal asserted that the plaintiff was leaving “students unattended in the classroom” and “leaving campus without receiving permission.” Id.Combined with the alleged lack of lesson plans and “unacceptable teaching,” the Principal initiated a “just cause” hearing in October 2006.²Id.At the hearing, the Principal averred that the plaintiff “admitted he was wrong” as to all four of the Principal's allegations against him “and promised to correct his errors.” Id.The plaintiff's employment continued following the “just cause” hearing, but “at the beginning of the 2007–2008 school year, the Assistant Principal and [the Principal] began to receive reports that [the plaintiff] was sleeping in class and again leaving his class unattended.” Id.

The Principal stated that he and the Assistant Principal “closely monitor[ed] the plaintiff” for a week, beginning on October 15, 2007, just before an “Annual Inspection” of the NJROTC unit was conducted on October 18. Id.at 309–10. During this period, the Principal stated he and the Assistant Principal observed several incidents of the plaintiff being away from his classroom, sleeping in class, or otherwise failing to comply with his responsibilities as a school employee. Id.Along with the Principal's personal observations of the plaintiff, the Principal noted that the plaintiff had been reporting inaccurate enrollment figures to the Navy, thus concealing the fact that the unit had fewer than the required number of students to maintain the program. Id.at 310–11. Additionally, the Principal stated that he was informed by the plaintiff's...