Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_19-cv-00608/USCOURTS-ared-4_19-cv-00608-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 10:1552 Armed Forces: Action to Correct Records

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

BRUCE H. BOKONY and 

BRANDON H. BOKONY 

v. No. 4:19-cv-608-DPM 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

DEFENSE, Secretary of Defense, Mark T. 

Esper; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

THE NA VY, Secretary of the Department of 

the Navy, Richard V. Spencer; 

JEFF W. HUGHES, Commander Navy 

Personnel Command, Rear Admiral; and 

DOES, United States Navy Personnel 

Command 

ORDER 

PLAINTIFFS 

DEFENDANTS 

Brandon Bokony is severely disabled and his father, Bruce, takes 

care of him. Bruce is a retired Navy man. He is frustrated with the 

Navy's decision that Brandon no longer qualifies for benefits through 

the Incapacitated Family Member Program. Bruce filed this lawsuit 

challenging the Navy's decision. The Navy asks the Court to send the 

matter back to the Navy Personnel Command so it can reassess things, 

interpret its own regulations, and create a fuller record. Magistrate 

Judge Volpe recommends that remand. Bruce objects, asking this Court 

to hold that the law clearly entitles Brandon to permanent benefits. 

Case 4:19-cv-00608-DPM Document 48 Filed 04/28/20 Page 1 of 5
This Court reviews Magistrate Judge Volpe's recommendation de novo. 

Doc. 46; Doc. 47; FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). 

The core dispute is the Navy's calculations. Bruce filled out the 

Navy's DD Form 137-5 and put Brandon's social security benefits down 

as earned income. Doc. 39 at 4 & 8. His benefits are $1,137 a month. 

Doc. 39 at 4, 5 & 8. Bruce also had to specify fifty percent of Brandon's 

monthly expenses. That number is $1,060.39. Doc. 39 at 4, 5 & 8. So the 

form reflected that Brandon's earned income was more than half his 

monthly expenses. Bruce was not paying more than half of Brandon's 

expenses; Brandon was; and therefore the family didn't qualify for the 

Incapacitated Family Member Program. Doc. 39 at 8. The Navy 

canceled Brandon's benefits and revoked his ID card. Doc. 39 at 8; 

Doc. 44 at 2. Bruce says he didn't have any guidance in filling out the 

form. After getting some, he has gone back and forth with the Navy to 

clarify that Brandon is dependent on him. Doc. 39. As Bruce puts it, 

Brandon "is totally incapacitated, both mentally and physically, such 

that he has never lived alone or been capable of self-support." Doc. 39 

at 7. 

The Navy wants to reconsider, while the Bokonys seek judgment 

as a matter of law. They argue hard from 10 U.S.C. § 1060(b), 10 U.S.C. 

§ 1072, and 32 C.F.R. § 199.3. The Court has studied those authorities, 

but is unable to conclude that the Bokonys are entitled to prevail as a 

matter of law. The governing regulation, for example, begins with 

-2-

Case 4:19-cv-00608-DPM Document 48 Filed 04/28/20 Page 2 of 5
some hedging words about eligibility and sweeps in many other 

potentially applicable regulations. 32 C.F.R. § 199.3(a). Plus, it is not 

clear that the Navy has had the opportunity to consider the Bokonys' 

recent legal arguments about 32 C.F.R. § 199.3; the Navy's denial letter 

mentions only Title 10. The record also needs more development in 

several areas: Do Brandon's social security disability benefits count as 

earned income? What are his eligible expenses? Exactly what amount 

of support does Bruce provide? While the Bokonys say they have 

nothing to add on the facts, the Court concludes that more, or at least 

clarification, would be helpful. 

In general, when an agency seeks a remand to reconsider and take 

further action in pursuit of complying with the law, a court should 

allow that step. E.g., Citizens Against Pellissippi Parkway Extension, Inc. 

v. Mineta, 375 F.3d 412, 416-18 (6th Cir. 2004); see also Dakota, Minnesota 

& Eastern Railroad Corporation v. U.S. Department of Labor Administrative 

Review Board, 948 F.3d 940, 947-48 (8th Cir. 2020). Though it seems to 

be an open question in the Eighth Circuit, the weight of authority holds 

that remand without vacating the agency decision is permitted by the 

Administrative Procedure Act and is a matter of the Court's equitable 

discretion. Black Warrior Riverkeeper, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

781 F.3d 1271, 1289-90 (11th Cir. 2015). Here, if the Navy denies 

benefits after reconsideration, the Court will have the benefit of its full 

reasoning based on all the applicable regulations and a more complete 

-3-

Case 4:19-cv-00608-DPM Document 48 Filed 04/28/20 Page 3 of 5
factual record. The Court is not persuaded by the Bokonys' argument 

that a remand will only mean delay and prolongation of error. It may 

result in the sought-after benefits. If not, it will result in a record clearer 

on the law and the facts. The Court's deadlines, moreover, will secure 

a prompt reconsideration by the agency that administers these benefits 

for veterans' families. 

* * * 

As supplemented, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Volpe's 

recommendation to remand, Doc. 46, and overrules the Bokonys' 

objections, Doc. 47. The motion for summary judgment, Doc. 26, is 

denied without prejudice. This matter is remanded to the Secretary of 

the Navy, who must return it to the Navy Personnel Command. The 

Bokonys have until 29 May 2020 to file with the Navy Personnel 

Command any related claims or amend their financial recertification 

information. The Navy Personnel Command must reconsider the 

Bokonys' claims, including those in Doc. 40, and issue a decision by 

27 August 2020. The defendants must file that decision with the Court 

as soon as practicable after the decision is made. The Court retains 

jurisdiction. The case is stayed until further Order. 

-4-

Case 4:19-cv-00608-DPM Document 48 Filed 04/28/20 Page 4 of 5
So Ordered. 

i' 

D .P. Marshall Jr. 

United States District Judge 

-5-

Case 4:19-cv-00608-DPM Document 48 Filed 04/28/20 Page 5 of 5