Court Opinion

ID: 9555591
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-14 16:01:23.191107+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:36:53.060637
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                               FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________
                                                   )
MONROE QUAILES, JR.,                               )
                                                   )
                Plaintiff,                         )
                                                   )
           v.                                      )          Civil Action No. 19-2541 (EGS)
                                                   )
CARLOS DEL TORO, 1                                 )
                                                   )
          Defendant.                               )
_________________________________                  )

                                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Plaintiff Monroe Quailes, Jr., is a veteran of the United States Army and the United

States Navy, who has sought for years to upgrade his 1979 administrative discharge for criminal

misconduct to a disability discharge. See Mem. Op. at 2-3, ECF No. 16 (recounting prior

proceedings). What remains in this action brought under the Administrative Procedure Act

(“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 702-706, is the November 13, 2017 decision of the Board for Correction

of Naval Records (“BCNR” or “Board”), denying Plaintiff’s request to reconsider its earlier

decisions based on “new information not previously considered,” Compl. Attach., ECF No. 1-1

at 1; see generally Mem. Op. (denying Defendant’s initial motion to dismiss on procedural

grounds).

          Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative

Record, ECF No. 20, and Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 22. For

the following reasons, Defendant’s motion will be granted, and Plaintiff’s motion will be

denied.

1
    By substitution pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

                                                         1
                                            I. BACKGROUND

         On May 14, 1976, Plaintiff enlisted in the Navy and was “assigned to the USS

HAWKINS where he suffered from severe bouts of sea sickness, thought disorganization, and

paranoid delusions.” Quailes v. United States, 25 Cl. Ct. 659, 661, aff'd, 979 F.2d 216 (Fed. Cir.

1992). When Plaintiff returned “to port,” he “was absent without leave (“AWOL”) on and off

for 2 to 4 months.” Id. at 661. On December 28, 1976, while AWOL, Plaintiff was arrested in

Maryland and “charged with several incidents of breaking and entering. While in police

custody,” he “was diagnosed at the state hospital for the criminally insane as suffering from

paranoid schizophrenia, but was found competent to stand trial. Plaintiff was subsequently

sentenced to 10 years in prison.” Id. On March 20, 1979, Plaintiff was paroled to the Navy.

Once in military custody, Plaintiff

                 was court-martialed for a period of unauthorized absence during
                 which he pled guilty to grand larceny and breaking and entering in
                 a civilian court. During those proceedings, his counsel requested a
                 medical and psychiatric board evaluation. The Board noted that
                 plaintiff's psychiatric history began prior to his service and that he
                 suffered from schizophrenia but concluded that he was competent
                 to participate in his defense.

                 Based on this evaluation, the Navy withdrew the charges and
                 referred him to a medical board, which in 1979 diagnosed him with
                 schizophrenia and recommended that his case be referred for a
                 disability determination. In exchange for waiving his right to
                 challenge the discharge, the Navy in 1979 gave him a “general
                 discharge by reason of misconduct” for his conviction during his
                 military service, instead of an “other than honorable” discharge.

Quailes v. United States, No. 18-225C, 2018 WL 5817899, at *1–2 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 7, 2018)

(citing Quailes, 25 Cl. Ct.at 664); see AR 086; AR 266-267. 2

2
    The Administrative Record (AR) is assigned ECF Nos. 28-31.

                                                   2
       In the agency action at issue in this case, Plaintiff requested and was denied

reconsideration of his application to correct his “naval record pursuant to the provisions” of 10

U.S.C. § 1552, ECF No. 1-1, to reflect “an upgraded discharge to medical disability” due to post-

traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and restoration of his “rank of E-3 with pay” for the periods

of September 15, 1976 – October 6, 1976 and October 7, 1976 – March 20, 1979. AR 028.

Plaintiff included a document titled “VA Compensation & Pension Exams Initial Post Traumatic

Stress Disorder (PTSD) Disability Benefits Questionnaire” dated December 10, 2014. AR 032-

046. In the denial letter to Plaintiff dated November 13, 2017, BCNR explained:

               The Board carefully considered your arguments that you should be
               placed on the Permanent Disability Retirement List for your Post-
               Traumatic Stress Disorder. Additionally, the Board considered
               your requests to be reinstated to the paygrade of E-3 and issued
               back pay for your periods             of unauthorized absence.
               Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief.

               First, the Board determined you suffered from schizophrenia, a
               preexisting disqualifying condition, which should have barred your
               enlistment in the Navy. The 12 June 1979 Sanity Board report and
               22 June 1979 medical board report both determined that you
               suffered from schizophrenia prior to your enlistment in the Navy.
               The Board determined that the Navy’s error in enlisting you does
               not qualify you for placement on the Permanent Disability
               Retirement List for that condition but mandated that the Navy to
               [sic] process you for separation for a disability condition that
               existed prior to entry[,] provided the disability processing was not
               superseded by misconduct related administrative separation
               processing.

               Second, the fact you went into an unauthorized absence status as a
               result of your schizophrenia and committed serious criminal
               offenses that resulted in your conviction and incarceration by the
               State of Maryland was determined not to be a sufficient basis to
               grant you military disability benefits, restore your E-3 paygrade, or
               provide you with back pay. According to your record, while you
               initially claimed to be insane, you eventually pled guilty and were
               convicted in civilian court to multiple counts of breaking and
               entering along with grand larceny. This conviction was serious
               enough to warrant a 10-year confinement sentence by the State of

                                                 3
               Maryland. Based on this evidence, in the Board’s opinion, your
               conviction was serious enough to meet the requirement for
               administrative separation processing for civilian conviction.

               Third, since the Board concluded that you were properly convicted
               by a civilian court of a serious offense to qualify for administrative
               separation processing, it also concluded that your disability
               processing was properly superseded by the civilian conviction
               processing.

               Fourth, the Board determined that there was insufficient evidence
               to support a finding that you were suffering from PTSD symptoms
               warranting a finding of unfit for continued naval service.
               However, even if such evidence existed, the Board felt your
               condition also would have preexisted your entry into the Navy
               since it is likely based on traumatic events that occurred prior to
               your enlistment in the Navy. In your application, you argue that
               you suffered from PTSD as a result of your service in the Army
               but were allowed to enlist in the Navy. Again, the Board felt this
               would be another case of erroneous enlistment that does not
               mandate issuance of military disability benefits.

               Finally, despite the medical determination that you started to suffer
               from your schizophrenia condition in 1969, the Board felt it had
               insufficient evidence to set aside your 5 September 1976 non-
               judicial punishment and reinstate you to the pay grade of E-3. As
               noted in your entrance physical of February 1976, you were
               medically cleared to enlist after receiving treatment for your
               mental illness in 1975 and successfully completed basic training.
               This evidence along with the State of Maryland's finding that you
               were not criminally insane in 1977 led the Board to conclude that
               insufficient evidence exists to support a finding that you were not
               criminally responsible for your unauthorized absences that led to
               your non-judicial punishment. Further, the Board found no legal
               authority to pay you for periods of unauthorized absence.
               Accordingly, the Board determined no error or injustice exists in
               your case.

ECF No. 1-1 at 1-2 (reformatted for clarity).

                                   II. LEGAL STANDARD

       The APA authorizes a 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). Although

                                                 4
“ ‘[s]ummary judgment is an appropriate procedure for resolving a challenge to a federal

agency’s administrative decision when review is based upon the administrative record,’ ” Bloch

v. Powell, 227 F. Supp. 2d 25, 30–31 (D.D.C. 2002) (quoting Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F.

Supp. 96, 105 (D.D.C. 1995)), “the standard set forth in Rule 56(a) does not apply” because the

court has a “limited role in reviewing the administrative record.” Coe v. McHugh, 968 F. Supp.

2d 237, 239 (D.D.C. 2013) (citations omitted).

       Under the APA’s arbitrary and capricious standard, “the scope of review . . . is narrow[,]

and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v.

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). See Envt'l. Def. Fund, Inc. v. Costle,

657 F.2d 275, 283 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (explaining that “[a]rbitrary and capricious” review is

“highly deferential” and “presumes the agency’s action to be valid”); Coe, 968 F. Supp. 2d at

239 (“Under the APA, the agency’s role is to resolve factual issues to arrive at a decision that is

supported by the administrative record, while ‘the function of the district court is to determine

whether or not as a matter of law the evidence in the administrative record permitted the agency

to make the decision it did.’ ”) (quoting Occidental Eng’g Co. v. INS, 753 F.2d 766, 769–70 (9th

Cir. 1985)). An agency’s explanation must, at a minimum, contain “a rational connection

between the facts found and the choice made.” State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43 (citing Burlington

Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). A “brief statement” will suffice if

it is clear from the agency’s explanation “why it chose to do what it did.” Tourus Records, Inc.

v. Drug, 259 F.3d 731, 737 (D.C. Cir. 2001); Iaccarino v. Duke, 327 F. Supp. 3d 163, 177

(D.D.C. 2018).

       A military “Secretary’s decision to deny corrective relief is reviewable under the APA.”

Kreis v. Sec’y of Air Force, 866 F.2d 1508, 1515 (D.C. Cir. 1989). When undertaking review of

                                                 5
a military correction board decision pursuant to the APA, the Court will defer to the decision of

the military correction board unless the board’s decision is “arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law,

or unsupported by substantial evidence.” Thalasinos v. Harvey, 479 F. Supp. 2d 45, 49 (D.D.C.

2007) (quoting Frizelle v. Slater, 111 F.3d 172, 176 (D.C. Cir. 1997)). The court considers

“whether the agency acted within the scope of its legal authority, whether the agency has

explained its decision, whether the facts on which the agency purports to have relied have some

basis in the record, and whether the agency considered the relevant factors.” Fund for Animals,

903 F. Supp. at 105 (citing Marsh v. Oregon Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 378 (1989)).

“When an agency provides a statement of reasons insufficient to permit a court to discern its

rationale, or states no reasons at all, the usual remedy is a remand to the agency for additional

investigation or explanation.” Tourus Records, Inc., 259 F.3d at 738 (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted).

         A party seeking judicial review of a board’s decision must overcome “the strong but

rebuttable presumption that administrators of the military, like other public officers, discharge

their duties correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.” Frizelle, 111 F.3d at 177. Consequently, the

plaintiff has the burden of showing “by clearly convincing evidence that the decision was the

result of a material legal error or injustice.” Fulbright v. McHugh, 67 F. Supp. 3d 81, 89 (D.D.C.

2014), aff'd sub nom. Fulbright v. Murphy, 650 Fed. App’x 3 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).

The Court’s role is to decide only “whether the decision-making process was deficient, not

whether [the] decision was correct.” Dickson v. Sec’y of Def., 68 F.3d 1396, 1405 (D.C. Cir.

1995).

         Notwithstanding the highly deferential standard of review, a plaintiff may successfully

rebut the presumption of correctness afforded the military board’s decision if he shows that the

                                                 6
Board failed to consider or respond to an argument that is not “frivolous on [its] face and could

affect the Board’s ultimate disposition.” Frizelle, 111 F.3d at 177.

                                         III. DISCUSSION

       The “Secretary of a military department may correct any military record of the

Secretary’s department when the Secretary considers it necessary to correct an error or remove

an injustice. 10 U.S.C. § 1552(a)(1). Absent an exception not applicable here, such corrections

are made “by the Secretary acting through boards of civilians” like the BCNR. Id. Plaintiff

advances three arguments, all of which are unavailing.

       First, Plaintiff argues that the Board “failed to give justifiable answers as to why it did

not” review the motion to reconsider under a “new standard” effective June 1, 2016. Pl.’s Mot.,

ECF No. 20 at 5. He posits that the new standard “allows Sailors and Marines suffering with

post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury or any other diagnosed mental health

condition to be referred into the Disability Evaluation System” and requires that “diagnosed

mental health conditions [take] precedence over misconduct when considering separation.” Id.

But Plaintiff does not dispute that he failed to raise this issue with the Board in the

reconsideration motion currently under review, see Def.’s Mem., ECF No. 22-1 at 28, and “it is a

hard and fast rule of administrative law, rooted in simple fairness, that issues not raised before an

agency are waived and will not be considered by a court on review.” Nuclear Energy Inst., Inc.

v. Env't Prot. Agency, 373 F.3d 1251, 1297 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

       Second, Plaintiff faults the Board for failing “to address the issue of ineffective assistance

of counsel in his petition for reconsideration dated January 23, 2018.” Pl.’s Mot. at 5. As

indicated above, the 2018 petition is beyond the scope of this litigation. Moreover, Defendant

                                                  7
posits, and the Court agrees, that “it would be inappropriate for the BCNR to consider a

collateral attack” on Plaintiff’s Maryland conviction. Def.’s Mem. at 24, n.3.

       Finally, Plaintiff argues that the Board “failed to honor or accept the full value” of the

“doctors medical board report or the sanity board report . . . or state why it was only honored

desertion.” Mot. at 6. But the Board in fact considered the reports and rationally explained their

weight, see supra at 3-4, and district courts reviewing agency action under the APA may not

“duplicate agency fact-finding efforts” or generally “engage in independent fact-finding.” James

Madison Ltd. by Hecht v. Ludwig, 82 F.3d 1085, 1096 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

                                      IV. CONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion is granted, and Plaintiff’s motion is

denied. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

                                              SIGNED:  EMMET G. SULLIVAN
                                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATE: August 14, 2023

                                                 8