Huffman v. Kelly, Civil Action No. 16–861 (RBW)
Decision Date | 08 March 2017 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 16–861 (RBW) |
Citation | 239 F.Supp.3d 144 |
Parties | Brian C. HUFFMAN, Plaintiff, v. John KELLY, Secretary of Homeland Security, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Eric Sebastian Montalvo, FEDERAL PRACTICE GROUP WORLDWIDE SERVICE, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Daniel Patrick Schaefer, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
The plaintiff, Brian Huffman, seeks judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 – 706 (2012), of a decision by the United States Coast Guard Board for Correction of Military Records (the "Board") denying his application to upgrade his reenlistment code and his rank after he was involuntarily discharged from the United States Coast Guard (the "Coast Guard"). See Complaint ("Compl.") ¶¶ 3, 37, 44. Currently before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment ("Def.'s Mot.") and the Plaintiff's Cross–Motion for Summary Judg[ ]ment and Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Pl.'s Mot."). Upon careful consideration of the parties' submissions and the administrative record in this case,2 the Court concludes that it must grant in part and deny in part the defendant's motion to dismiss, deny the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and enter summary judgment in favor of the defendant.
. However, there are no negative entries in his record from 2002 to December 2006.
AR 0225.
On December 8, 2006, while stationed in Miami, Florida, see Compl. ¶ 13; Def.'s Mem. at 4, the plaintiff was arrested and charged with battering and kidnapping his wife, and detained for two weeks by Florida state authorities. AR 0225–0226; Compl. ¶ 15. These charges were subsequently dismissed. AR 0017. "On December 29, 2006, [the plaintiff's commanding officer] issued a Military No-contact Order requiring the [plaintiff] not to have any contact with his wife for 30 days except during formal marriage counseling sessions through the Work Life/Employee Assistance Program (EAP)." AR 0226. Thereafter, "the Family Advocacy Specialist handling his case [ ] determined that the allegations of spousal abuse ... had been substantiated ... [and] the command renewed the no-contact order and made it indefinite until rescinded." AR 0226.
AR 0227. The plaintiff was also put on performance probation for "failure to obey direct orders, lack of attention to detail, and [his] argumentative and disrespectful behavior." AR 0227. The plaintiff's commanding officer warned the plaintiff "that if he failed to make an effort to overcome his deficiencies or violated the conditions of the probation, the [commanding officer] would initiate his discharge." AR 0227. The plaintiff appealed his nonjudicial punishment, but his appeal was denied. See AR 0227, 0229.
On March 15, 2007, the plaintiff filed "an informal complaint of religious discrimination and retaliation" on the part of his supervisor. AR 0228; see also AR 0224. "On March 30, 2007, the [plaintiff] filed a formal complaint of discrimination and retaliation after a meeting with his chain of command and a District mediator the day before had not resolved his complaint." AR 0229.4
The plaintiff received additional Page 7s on March 20, 2007, for failure to obey a direct order to report for duty at 7:00 a.m. that morning, see AR 0229, and on April 9, 2007, for "showing direct disrespect and insubordination," AR 0230. Also on April 9, 2007, the plaintiff was charged with failure to obey an order and absence without leave. See AR 0230. On April 16, 2007, after an investigation of the two April 9, 2007 charges, the plaintiff received "two weeks of restriction to base and extra duties," and was told "that he was being processed for a General discharge because of continued misconduct." AR 0231. The plaintiff was told "that he had a right to consult a lawyer and to submit a statement on his own behalf." AR 0231.
On April 17, 2007, the plaintiff's commanding officer issued a memorandum to the plaintiff informing the plaintiff that he supported the plaintiff's general discharge.
*
AR 0231. The commanding officer AR 0231–0232.
AR 0232–0233.
After the plaintiff was discharged from the Coast Guard, he applied to the Discharge Review Board to upgrade his discharge and reenlistment code. AR 0234. Although the Discharge Review Board recommended that the plaintiff's discharge "should stand as issued," AR 0100, the Commandant disagreed "due to a procedural flaw in [the plaintiff's] discharge," AR 0099, 0235. The Commandant corrected the plaintiff's record to show an Honorable discharge "for Miscellaneous/General Reasons," but did not upgrade the plaintiff's reenlistment code. AR 0099, 0235. The Commandant did not explain the "procedural flaw" that he found in the plaintiff's discharge in his Memorandum, see AR 0099, but the Board subsequently determined that "the Commandant's decision to upgrade the [plaintiff's] discharge to Honorable and his narrative reason for separation to 'Miscellaneous/General Reasons' appears to have been based on a finding of error concerning the processing of the [plaintiff's] rebuttal statement," AR 0039. The Board stated that "it appears that the Personnel Command may not have received [the rebuttal statement] nor reviewed it before issuing the [plaintiff's] discharge orders." AR 0254.
Thereafter, the plaintiff "filed an application with [the Board] requesting a change in the reenlistment code from RE–4 (ineligible to reenlist) to RE–1 (eligible to reenlist)." Compl. ¶ 44; see also Def.'s Mem. at 11.5 The plaintiff alleged that "his chain of command railroaded his discharge ... in retaliation for his decision to file a formal [equal employment opportunity] complaint against his supervisor, who had harassed him because of his religion." AR 0016. The Board denied his request on August 20, 2009. See AR 0016, 0041. The plaintiff then filed a request for reconsideration of the Board's decision on September 4, 2009...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mdewakanton Sioux Indians of Minn. v. Zinke
...is limited to the section 2401(b), Circuit precedent remains binding on this Court[.]"); see also, e.g., Huffman v. Kelly, 239 F.Supp.3d 144, 154, 2017 WL 932949, at *5 (D.D.C. 2017) ; In re Chaplaincy, No. 1:07-269, 2016 WL 541126, at *3 (D.D.C. Feb. 9, ...
-
Ahuruonye v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior
..."must prove that the offending agency acted ‘without grounds for believing [that its actions were] lawful’ or prove that it ‘flagrantly 239 F.Supp.3d 144disregarded’ the rights guaranteed under the Privacy Act." Jacobs v. Bureau of Prisons , 845 F.Supp.2d 224, 229–30 (D.D.C. 2012) (quoting ......