BERYL A. HOWELL, District Judge.
The plaintiff Steven Tindal brings this action against the defendant Secretary of the Army pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 500 et seq., seeking to set aside the decision of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records ("the Board" or "the ABCMR"), which denied the plaintiff's request to be reinstated to Reserve active status, promoted to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, and transferred to the Oregon Army National Guard. The plaintiff served in an active-duty capacity in the United States Army for over twenty years. Following his retirement in September 2002, he twice appealed to the Board, claiming that he had filed a request to extend his active-duty service and thus that his retirement was an injustice that required correction. The Board denied his appeals, and the plaintiff now seeks to overturn the Board's most recent denial as arbitrary and capricious and unsupported by substantial evidence. Both parties have filed motions for summary judgment, and the plaintiff has also filed a motion to supplement the administrative record with further evidence.
Since this is an administrative law case, the Court will first discuss the regulatory framework underlying the agency's decision before discussing the facts and the procedural history.
This case implicates a somewhat labyrinthine collection of United States Army personnel regulations governing how soldiers are administratively processed, particularly when they reach a certain maximum level of service. As discussed more fully below, the plaintiff was at all times relevant to this lawsuit a member of the Army Active Guard Reserve ("AGR"), and so the Court will discuss the Army's personnel regulations as they apply to participants in the AGR program.
Under Army regulations, "[a]ll AGR officer personnel will be released from [active duty] or [full-time National Guard duty] when they have attained 20 years and 1 month of qualifying service for retirement purposes . . . unless they have been approved for voluntary retention under [Army Regulation] 600-8-24." Army Reg. 135-18 ¶ 4-12 (1996).
Retirement from the AGR based upon maximum years of service can be either voluntary or involuntary. "A mandatory retirement is required by law and is initiated by [the Headquarters of the Department of the Army]." Army Reg. 600-8-24 ¶ 6-24a (2002). On the other hand, "a voluntary nonwaiver retirement" may be requested by an officer, and "it is Army policy to approve a voluntary nonwaiver retirement application when an officer will have served at least 20 years of active Federal service as of the requested retirement date." Id. ¶ 6-14a; see also id. ¶ 6-20 (outlining steps for processing a voluntary retirement application). Hence, voluntary retirement in the AGR program is initiated by the soldier who applies for such retirement, and involuntary retirement is initiated by Army Headquarters and proceeds by operation of law. The timing of an AGR soldier's retirement, however, is not necessarily correlated to whether the retirement was voluntary or involuntary because "[a]n officer may request retirement and be retired voluntarily on his or her mandatory retirement date." See id. ¶ 6-24a; see also id. ¶ 2-23d ("The officer's separation will not be delayed past the scheduled release date due to nonsubmission or late submission of a voluntary retirement request.").
Related to both retirement and selective retention, a soldier is required to meet certain minimum medical and fitness criteria. For example, in order for a soldier to be retained and "selected for subsequent duty in the AGR Program," he "must possess" certain minimum qualifications, including certain "Physical and Medical" qualifications. See Army Reg. 135-18 ¶ 2-4b & tbl. 2-4; see also Army Reg. 40-501 ch. 3 (2002) (laying out "Medical Fitness Standards for Retention and Separation, Including Retirement"). These qualifications include "body composition/weight control standard[s]" and "medical fitness standards." Army Reg. 135-18 tbl. 2-4. Generally, medical evaluation of whether active-duty soldiers meet minimum physical requirements is only initiated "when a question arises as to the Soldier's ability to perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating because of physical disability" or a soldier's commanding officer "believes that a Soldier of their command is unable to perform the duties of their office, grade, rank, or rating because of a physical disability." See Army Reg. 635-40 ¶¶ 4-6, 4-8 (1990).
As to retirement, "[m]edical examination prior to retirement is required," and "will be scheduled not earlier than 4 months prior to the retirement date." Army Reg. 600-8-24 ¶ 6-6. "When a soldier is being processed for separation or retirement for reasons other than physical disability," however, "continued performance of assigned duty commensurate with his or her rank or grade until the solder is scheduled for separation or retirement, creates a presumption that the soldier is fit." Army Reg. 635-40 ¶ 3-2(b)(2). This presumption may be overcome if, inter alia, "[a]n acute, grave illness or injury or other significant deterioration of the soldier's physical condition occurred immediately prior to, or coincident with processing for separation or retirement for reasons other than physical disability and which rendered the soldier unfit for further duty." Id. ¶ 3-2b(2)(b).
In addition to these general medical and fitness requirements, there are two Army administrative systems relevant to this
The PDES, much like the PPES, is concerned with "determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating." See Army Reg. 635-40 ¶ 1-1. Similar to the screening role played by the MMRB in the PPES process, a medical evaluation board ("MEB" or "MEBD") is involved in the PDES process. See id. ¶ 2-10a. "MEBD's are convened to document a soldier's medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by the soldier's status," id. ¶ 4-10, and a soldier is generally referred to an MEBD, like an MMRB, when a question arises about the soldier's ability "to perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating because of physical disability," see id. ¶¶ 4-6, 4-8. A soldier may also be referred to an MEBD by the MMRB,
In March 1976, the plaintiff enlisted in the U.S. Army. See Admin. R. ("A.R.") at
In December 2001, the plaintiff was notified that he would be released from active duty and transferred to the Retired Reserve on August 31, 2002, after having accrued twenty years of active federal service. See Def.'s Facts ¶ 11. At some unspecified time in 2002, the plaintiff submitted a request for voluntary retirement.
The plaintiff's personnel record reflects a long and distinguished career in military service. On October 20, 2002, the plaintiff received the Meritorious Service Medal for his twenty years of "exemplary service coupled with his superb technical expertise." See A.R. at 138. His commanding officers also consistently and enthusiastically recommended him for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. See id. at 140-41 ("Promote when eligible."); id. at 147 ("Promote to lieutenant colonel and give him every opportunity for our best professional development schools."); id. at 153 ("MAJ Tindal is Battalion command material and should be considered when eligible."). On September 4, 2002, a promotion board selected the plaintiff for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, but the promotion selection was declared null and void due to the plaintiff's transfer to the Retired Reserve prior to the approval date of his promotion. See Def.'s Facts ¶ 16; A.R. at 118, 134.
On September 9, 2005, the plaintiff submitted an application to the Board,
On February 26, 2010, the plaintiff filed his original Complaint in the instant action. In his Complaint, the plaintiff presented a different version of the arguments he advanced before the Board. In particular, the plaintiff alleged that "[h]e attempted to argue that while his [active federal service] extension was pending,
On June 17, 2010, the parties filed a joint motion to remand the case to the Board. See Consent Mot. for Voluntary Remand to Agency ("Mot. to Remand"), ECF No. 7. In that motion, the parties stated that "Defendant seeks to withdraw the final agency decision . . . and remand the action to the [Board] to reconsider its decision." Id. at 1. In light of the plaintiff's equitable arguments regarding his purported extension request, which were not clearly raised before the Board the first time around, the defendant "agree[d] that remand to the [Board] is appropriate so that the board can further analyze the limited issue of whether the [NGB] failed to timely act upon Plaintiff's extension request and, if so, whether such failure is an error, injustice or inequity supporting the relief that plaintiff seeks." Id. at 3. The joint motion also made clear that "[o]n remand, the [Board] will not consider any other arguments that Plaintiff raises in his complaint." Id. This precluded review of the plaintiff's "novel arguments" regarding the equitable remedies of estoppel, tolling, and "lulling." See id. at 3-4; see also Compl. ¶ 39. The defendant agreed to have the Board consider the limited issue regarding the plaintiff's purported extension request, "all of the relevant evidence that Plaintiff previously submitted to the [Board]" and three new pieces of evidence, which included two academic research papers from students at the U.S. Army War College and a previous Board decision. See Mot. to Remand at 3-4. The previous presiding judge in this case granted the parties' motion and remanded the matter to the Board for further consideration. See Consent Remand Order, ECF No. 9.
After the plaintiff submitted a new application for relief, the Board, on September 30, 2010, once again denied the relief requested. See A.R. at 4-14. The Board made two primary conclusions in arriving at its decision. First, it concluded that "there is no evidence in [the plaintiff's] records and he did not provide any evidence that he requested retention in the AGR program prior to his retirement." Id. at 12. Second, the Board concluded that, even assuming the plaintiff had submitted an extension request, (1) "the [plaintiff's] MEB had no impact on his ability to submit an extension request and did not prevent him from submitting a request much earlier," (2) "[h]ad such a request been submitted earlier, it appears the NGB could have had it approved with a waiver or pending the MMRB," and (3) "there is no evidence that [the plaintiff's purported extension request] was submitted
On November 22, 2010, the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, asking the Court to set aside the Board's September 2010 decision under the APA. See Am. Compl. at 1. This time, the plaintiff alleged that "[t]he record shows that Tindal's extension request was in fact submitted because NGB medically flagged the application for Tindal's 3P permanent profile for diabetes," and thus the plaintiff alleged that "NGB initiated an MMRB for purposes of AGR continuation." See id. ¶ 19.
Currently pending before the Court are three motions. The first two are cross-motions for summary judgment filed by each party. The third motion, filed by the plaintiff, asks the Court to supplement the administrative record with four new pieces of evidence. These pieces of evidence include: (A) "Major Tindal's `Request for Retention Beyond 20 Years," dated February 27, 2002; (B) "Major Tindal's June 11, 2002 Army school and travel orders to Fort Dix, N.J. to attend `Command and General Staff Officer Course,'" (C) "Steven Tindal's declaration, dated July 20, 2011 (explaining why Exhibits A and B were not available until 2008 when released by Oregon ARNG)," and (D) "[Plaintiff's] Counsel's Declaration, [dated] November 18, 2010," which "offers relevant background information on past NGB practices provided in [an] interview of a retired Army [NGB] Brigadier General." See Pl.'s Mot. Supplement at 1-2, ECF No. 24. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants the defendant's motion
Under the APA, an agency action may be set aside if it is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Review of agency actions under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard is "highly deferential" and "presumes the agency's action to be valid." Envtl. Def. Fund, Inc. v. Costle, 657 F.2d 275, 283 (D.C.Cir.1981). In assessing an agency decision, the Court reviews whether "the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment." Citizens to Pres. Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971), abrogated on other grounds, Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977). "The scope of the Court's review under this standard `is narrow and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.'" United Steel v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 839 F.Supp.2d 232, 245 (D.D.C.2012) (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 30, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983)). "[A] reviewing court may not set aside an agency [decision] that is rational, based on consideration of the relevant factors, and within the scope of the authority delegated to the agency by the statute," so long as the agency has "examine[d] the relevant data and articulate[d] a satisfactory explanation for its action including a `rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.'" State Farm, 463 U.S. at 42-43, 103 S.Ct. 2856 (quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168, 83 S.Ct. 239, 9 L.Ed.2d 207 (1962)).
While judicial review of an agency's actions is generally narrow and subject to a presumption of validity, review of the Board's decisions in particular under the APA is "unusually deferential." See Piersall v. Winter, 435 F.3d 319, 324 (D.C.Cir.2006) (citing Kreis v. Sec'y of Air Force, 866 F.2d 1508, 1514 (D.C.Cir.1989)). When reviewing a decision of the Board, this Court's "inquiry focuses not on whether the Army was `substantively correct'. . . but rather on whether the ABCMR's explanations for that choice demonstrate that defendants `permissibly exercised [their] discretion and made a choice that is supported by at least substantial evidence.'" Hill v. Geren, 597 F.Supp.2d 23, 29 (D.D.C.2009) (citing Homer v. Roche, 226 F.Supp.2d 222, 226 (D.D.C.2002)). The "plaintiff must overcome a strong presumption that the military administrators discharged their duties correctly, lawfully, and in good faith." Escobedo v. Green, 602 F.Supp.2d 244, 249 (D.D.C.2009) (citing Frizelle v. Slater, 111 F.3d 172, 177 (D.C.Cir.1997)). To rebut this presumption "the plaintiff has the burden of showing by cogent and clearly convincing evidence that the decision was the result of a material legal error or injustice." Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court will begin by addressing the merits of the plaintiff's motion to supplement the administrative record. Next, the Court will address the defendant's argument that the plaintiff has waived certain arguments by failing to raise them before the agency. Finally, the Court will discuss the merits of the parties' motions for summary judgment.
Under the APA, "the court shall review the whole record or those parts of
"There are exceptional circumstances in which supplementation of the administrative record is appropriate due to some deficiency." Marcum v. Salazar, 751 F.Supp.2d 74, 78 (D.D.C.2010); accord City of Dania Beach v. FAA, 628 F.3d 581, 590 (D.C.Cir.2010) ("[W]e do not allow parties to supplement the record `unless they can demonstrate unusual circumstances justifying a departure from this general rule.'" (quoting Tex. Rural Legal Aid v. Legal Servs. Corp., 940 F.2d 685, 698 (D.C.Cir.1991))); Cape Hatteras Access Pres. Alliance v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 667 F.Supp.2d 111, 112 (D.D.C.2009) ("A court that orders an administrative agency to supplement the record of its decision is a rare bird."). The D.C. Circuit has recognized three narrow instances in which supplementation of an administrative record may be appropriate: "(1) if the agency `deliberately or negligently excluded documents that may have been adverse to its decision,' (2) if background information was needed `to determine whether the agency considered all the relevant factors,' or (3) if the `agency failed to explain administrative action so as to frustrate judicial review.'" City of Dania Beach, 628 F.3d at 590 (quoting American Wildlands, 530 F.3d at 1002). Underlying these exceptions, however, is the "strong presumption" that an agency has properly compiled the entire record of materials that it considered, either directly or indirectly, in making its decision. See, e.g., Marcum, 751 F.Supp.2d at 78; Maritel, Inc. v. Collins, 422 F.Supp.2d 188, 196 (D.D.C.2006) ("Although an agency may not unilaterally determine what constitutes the administrative record, the agency enjoys a presumption that it properly designated the administrative record absent clear evidence to the contrary."). To overcome that presumption, "a plaintiff must put forth concrete evidence that the documents it seeks to `add' to the record were actually before the decisionmakers." Marcum, 751 F.Supp.2d at 78; accord Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. Jackson, 856 F.Supp.2d 150, 156 (D.D.C.2012).
A doctrine related to "supplementing" the administrative record is when a court permits consideration of
As summarized above, the plaintiff has moved to "supplement the administrative record" with four new exhibits. See Pl.'s Mot. Supplement Admin. R., & Mem. in Supp. ("Pl.'s Supp. Mem.") at 1, ECF No. 24. Two of these documents appear to be personnel records of the plaintiff: (A) a copy of his purported AGR retention request; and (B) a copy of the orders directing him to attend a Command and General Staff Officer Course in June 2002. See id. The other two documents are sworn declarations: (C) one by the plaintiff himself, explaining why proposed Exhibits A and B were unavailable until 2008; and (D) one by the plaintiff's attorney, recounting the contents of a conversation with a "retired National Guard Brigadier General" which provided "relevant background information on past NGB practices." Id. at 1-2. At the outset, although the plaintiff's motion is styled as one to "supplement the administrative record," the doctrine of supplementing the administrative record, discussed above, clearly does not apply to the instant case because the plaintiff has not attempted to "put forth concrete evidence that the documents [he] seeks to `add' to the record were actually before the decisionmakers." See Marcum, 751 F.Supp.2d at 78. Thus, the Court will evaluate the plaintiff's motion as a request for the Court to consider
As discussed above, the exceptions permitting consideration of extra-record evidence in an administrative law case "at most . . . may be invoked to challenge gross procedural deficiencies." Hill Dermaceuticals, 709 F.3d at 47; see also Marcum, 751 F.Supp.2d at 79 ("The Esch exceptions are more appropriately applied in actions contesting the procedural validity of agency decisions."). In the instant case, however, the plaintiff does not challenge the procedural validity of the Board's decision. Rather, the gravamen of the plaintiff's claim is that the Board's decision was irrational and that its factual findings were not supported by substantial evidence, as discussed in more detail below. See Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. & Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. ("Pl.'s Opp'n") at 7-11, ECF No. 22-1. Thus, the substantive nature of the plaintiff's complaint about the Board's decision militates strongly against the consideration of extra-record evidence.
Moreover, as to the plaintiff's proffered Exhibits A and B, the Court is concerned that considering such evidence would be highly prejudicial to the Board because the plaintiff concedes that this evidence was available well before the 2010 Board decision at issue in this case. See, e.g., Decl. of Steven Tindal ("Tindal Decl.") ¶ 2, ECF No. 24-3 (attached as proposed Ex. C) (explaining that proposed Ex. A was available as of 2008); Pl.'s Supp. Mem. at 1 ("Exhibits A and B were not available until 2008 . . . .). The plaintiff contends that the defendant prohibited him from submitting Exhibits A and B "or any other documents except those included within Tindal's 2006 BCMR application" and therefore the plaintiff argues that "Exhibits A [and] B . . . fall within an Esch exception permitting supplementing the record for evidence previously unavailable." Pl.'s Supp. Mem. at 1, 3.
Likewise, the e-mail conversation cited by the plaintiff provides no support for the contention that the defendant or the Board foreclosed consideration of new, relevant evidence on remand. Much like the portions of the Motion to Remand discussed above, the e-mail conversation indicates that defense counsel was concerned "about the ABCMR only considering the issues placed before it in the original application." See A.R. at 30 (emphasis added); see also id. at 29 (objecting to submission of "three arguments that were never before the Board" and not wanting to "re-argue the issue of whether the longevity policy is fair" (emphasis added)). Indeed, plaintiff's counsel specifically eschewed the implication that he was trying to submit new evidence at all; his sole objection to defense counsel's proposed remand motion, as set forth in the e-mail conversation, was certain language "implying the complaint raises new evidence not already before the [Board], not within its constructive knowledge." Id. at 30. Plaintiff's counsel went so far as to state: "My intent in [the] Tindal complaint is not to raise new argument or evidence." Id. (emphasis added).
Plaintiff's counsel made the argument to defense counsel that the Board should consider the new evidence (academic research papers and previous Board decision) because they were "within [the Board's] constructive knowledge." Id. Yet, plaintiff's counsel never so much as implied the existence of Exhibits A and B, let alone discussed these documents as evidence that the plaintiff sought to be considered by the Board on remand, see id. at 29-30, despite the fact that the documents had allegedly already been in the plaintiff's possession for some time. In fact, the plaintiff has offered no evidence to show that the defendant or the Board were ever aware of the existence of Exhibits A or B until the filing of the Amended Complaint in November 2010—after the Board had already made the September 2010 decision challenged in this case. Defense counsel never objected to submitting the new evidence offered by the plaintiff and never "refused Tindal's submission on remand of any other documents except those before the [Board] in 2006," as the plaintiff contends. See Pl.'s Supp. Mem. at 2. Thus, the very evidence cited by the plaintiff demonstrates that, contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, Exhibits A and B do not "fall within an Esch exception permitting supplementing the record for evidence previously unavailable." See id. at 3.
The plaintiff argues that Exhibit D—the declaration by plaintiff's counsel summarizing the information about NGB practices ostensibly conveyed to him by a retired Army National Guard Brigadier General—should be considered, either as "evidence previously unavailable" or as "`background material' that is not argumentative but `primarily explanatory in nature.'" See id. at 3-4 (quoting Corel Corp. v. United States, 165 F.Supp.2d 12, 31 (D.D.C.2001)). As to the unavailability exception,
As to the exception for "background information," that exception does not apply to proposed Exhibit D for several reasons. First, the "background information" exception has been interpreted by the D.C. Circuit to apply only when such information is necessary to help the court understand the reasons for the agency's action, or to ensure that the agency considered all relevant factors. See James Madison Ltd. by Hecht v. Ludwig, 82 F.3d 1085, 1095 (D.C.Cir.1996); Envtl. Defense Fund, 657 F.2d at 285-86. Second, such "background information" is generally supposed to come from those who "participated in the pertinent agency actions," not from third parties purporting to act as de facto expert witnesses regarding the practices of the agency in question. See Envtl. Defense Fund, 657 F.2d at 286. Finally, any "background information" submitted "can never . . . examine the propriety of the decision itself." Id. Yet, Exhibit D runs afoul of each of these principles: (1) it is not necessary to help the court ascertain whether the agency considered all relevant factors or the reasons for the agency's action; (2) it does not come from any member of the Board or other person who participated in the Board's decisionmaking process in this case; and (3) it is submitted essentially as a third-party expert affidavit, challenging the merits of the Board's decision.
In addition to all of the above-discussed reasons for denying the plaintiff's
Exhibit D is a redacted version of a sworn declaration from the plaintiff's counsel, which purports to recount a telephone conversation with an anonymous individual about "past NGB procedures or practices on AGR assignments involving possible medical disqualification." See Decl. of John A Wickham ("Wickham Decl.") ¶ 1, ECF No. 24-4. Of principal concern with regard to this document, the plaintiff has offered no reason why this information had to be submitted as blatant hearsay, rather than having "the source" him or herself submit a sworn declaration attesting to such procedures or practices. In his motion to file the declaration under seal, the plaintiff referenced the fact that "the source has expressed fears of reprisal or other adverse action by [the] military, officials from the NGB, or others," see Pl.'s Mot. for Leave to File Decl. Under Seal ("Pl.'s Seal Mot.") at 1, ECF No. 28, but the identity of "the source" is no secret. The plaintiff named the source in his Amended Complaint, stating that "[t]he information on past NGB practices . . . was provided . . . by Brigadier General Julia Cleckley, ARNG (ret.)." See Am. Compl. ¶ 16. Furthermore, the plaintiff does not explain how General Cleckley could legitimately fear reprisal, in light of the fact that she appears to be retired and no longer serves in the chain of command. Id.; see also Pl.'s Seal Mot. at 1. Even assuming that the source of the information were anonymous, he or she still could have submitted a sworn declaration under seal if reprisal were a legitimate concern. In short, these indicia of unreliability further support the conclusion that proposed Exhibits A and D should not be retroactively added to the Administrative Record.
Next, the Court will address the defendant's argument that the plaintiff has waived certain arguments by failing to raise them before the Board. To put the defendant's waiver argument in context, the Court must first summarize the argument that the plaintiff has arguably waived. The plaintiff argues in his cross-motion for summary judgment that the Board's conclusion that there was no evidence that the plaintiff requested an extension of his active-duty service is contradicted by the fact that the plaintiff was processed through an MMRB. See Pl.'s Opp'n at 7-8; see also id. at 4-5. The logic of this argument (the "MMRB/extension request argument") is that an MMRB would not have been ordered unless the plaintiff had requested to be retained in active duty. See id. at 8. Relatedly, the plaintiff also contends that the Board failed to consider the "regulatory presumption" that "a proper [extension] request submitted earlier was the reason NGB directed an MMRB when presented with Tindal's permanent medical condition." See id. at 10. The defendant argues, in response to these arguments, that "[n]ot once does Plaintiff's application or supplemental statement [to the Board] state or even suggest that his extension request caused his MMRB referral." See Def.'s Reply at 9. Hence, the defendant argues that the plaintiff has "waived this argument by failing to raise the issue to the agency." Id. at 10.
"Simple fairness to those who are engaged in the tasks of administration, and to litigants, requires as a general rule that courts should not topple over administrative decisions unless the administrative body not only has erred but has erred against objection made at the time appropriate under its practice." United States v. L.A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc., 344 U.S. 33, 37, 73 S.Ct. 67, 97 L.Ed. 54 (1952). Hence, the D.C. Circuit has consistently held that courts "are bound to adhere to the `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.'" Coburn v. McHugh, 679 F.3d 924, 929 (D.C.Cir.2012) (quoting Nuclear Energy Inst. v. EPA, 373 F.3d 1251, 1297 (D.C.Cir.2004) (per curiam)); accord CSX Transp., Inc. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 584 F.3d 1076, 1079 (D.C.Cir.2009) (acknowledging the "well-established doctrine of issue waiver, which permits courts to decline to hear arguments not raised before the agency where the party had notice of the issue"). This principle applies to legal, as well as factual, arguments. See Nuclear Energy Institute, 373 F.3d at 1290 ("To preserve a legal or factual argument,. . . [a] proponent [must] have given the agency a `fair opportunity' to entertain it in the administrative forum before raising it in the judicial one." (quoting Wash. Ass'n for Television & Children v. FCC, 712 F.2d 677, 681 (D.C.Cir.1983))). The D.C. Circuit has very recently clarified that the standard for waiver in administrative law cases focuses on whether the
In response to the defendant's contention that the plaintiff waived the opportunity to raise the MMRB/extension request argument, the plaintiff first argues essentially that it was not his duty to bring this argument to the Board's attention. In this regard, the plaintiff argues that the Board has a "moral duty to address the true nature of any injustice," implying that the Board should have read between the lines of the plaintiff's application in the name of justice. See Pl.'s Reply at 1-2. Similarly, the plaintiff dismisses the defendant's waiver argument as "semantic quibbling," because the plaintiff "was not required to hand-hold an agency, particularly here with the [Board]'s presumed regulatory expertise on the elementary purpose of the [MMRB]." Id. at 6. In this same vein, the plaintiff characterizes his MMRB/extension request argument as "a regulatory fact," which "does not constitute a separate claim or argument of error or injustice." Id. Finally, the plaintiff argues that he placed the Board "on notice" of the MMRB/extension request argument when he: (1) "explained the function of an MMRB" and "alleged that at the time he submitted his extension request for approval, NGB `instead' referred him to the MMRB;" (2) "explained that further action on his pending extension request was `suspended' when NGB directed he undergo the MMRB;" (3) "explained that while final action on his extension request was pending, NGB directed an MMRB to determine if he was fit `to continue his career;" and (4) "noted that the result of the MMRB was `approval to continue' as an AGR." Id. at 6-7.
First, the plaintiff's arguments about not being required to "hand-hold an agency" and the Board having a "moral duty to address the true nature of any injustice," see id. at 2, 6, downplay the plaintiff's responsibilities as a party claiming relief before an administrative agency. Although the Board may have the "moral duty" cited by the plaintiff, that duty is no more demanding than the duty of every administrative agency to "consider [the] important aspect[s] of the problem" before it. See, e.g., State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856. Moral duty or no moral duty, the Board is not required to make a claimant's case for him or sift through the materials submitted by a claimant to discern whether any implied arguments are being made. Cf. Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Air Agencies v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1221, 1231 (D.C.Cir.2007) ("Objections must be prominent and clear enough to place the agency `on notice,' for EPA is not required `to cull through all the letters it receives and answer all of the possible implied arguments.'"). It is the claimant's responsibility, in the first instance, to lay out his arguments in a reasonably clear fashion, so that the Board can have a "fair opportunity" to consider them. See, e.g., Nuclear Energy Institute, 373 F.3d at 1290. This is particularly true when the claimant is represented by counsel, as the plaintiff was during his 2010 Board proceedings. See A.R. at 16. By that same token, although an expert administrative agency like the Board is presumptively familiar with the contents and meaning of its own rules and regulations, an agency is not required to anticipate and address every possible argument a party might have made to it based on those rules and regulations.
In short, the plaintiff never argued before the Board that his MMRB processing was proof that he submitted an extension request. Indeed, the plaintiff never drew any connection (causative or otherwise) between his purported extension request and his MMRB processing that would have reasonably put the Board on notice that the plaintiff was offering his MMRB processing as evidence that he in fact submitted an extension request in the first place. As a result of this omission, the plaintiff has waived his ability to make that argument in this Court. See, e.g., Koretoff, 707 F.3d at 398. The Board never had a fair opportunity to address that argument, and therefore this Court cannot fault the Board for not doing so.
Even assuming arguendo that the plaintiff had argued that the MMRB was proof of the existence of his extension request, the plaintiff still would not be able to demonstrate any error in the Board's decision that would warrant vacatur or reversal under the APA.
The defendant argues that "Plaintiff's voluntary retirement explains the basis for Plaintiff's medical processing" because voluntary retirement "requires a medical examination." See Def.'s Reply at 16; see also Army Reg. 600-8-24 ¶ 6-6 ("Medical examination prior to retirement is required."). The plaintiff counters, however, that "an MMRB is not a `medical examination' nor can it be part of retirement processing." Pl.'s Reply at 2. Neither party cites to Army regulations to support his argument on this point, and Army Regulation 600-8-24 does not define what constitutes a "medical examination" incident to retirement. Army Regulation 600-8-24 states only that "[t]he officer's immediate commander will ensure the medical examination is processed according to [Army Regulation] 40-501." See Army Reg. 600-8-24 ¶ 6-6. That referenced regulation, in turn, states that retirement "medical examinations" are required to include several elements, including a full clinical evaluation, but they do not appear to require referral to an MMRB or an MEBD. See Army Reg. 40-501 ¶ 8-12. Therefore, the regulatory underpinning is elusive for the defendant's argument that the retirement "medical examination" would have necessarily triggered the plaintiff's referral to an MMRB.
As a matter of fact, the Administrative Record provides no factual basis at all, under applicable Army regulations, for the plaintiff to be referred to the MMRB in 2002. The plaintiff had been issued a permanent physical profile of "3" as a result of his diabetes, but that occurred in 1998, see Am. Comp. ¶¶ 6, 9, which was approximately four years before he was actually processed through an MMRB in 2002. According to Army regulations, the plaintiff should have been referred to an MMRB at the time he was issued a permanent physical profile of "3," see Army Reg. 600-60 ¶ 2-2.a, but he was not, see Am. Compl. ¶ 9. Read as a whole, the Administrative Record suggests, but does not compel, the conclusion that the plaintiff's processing through an MMRB was the result of an administrative error, rather than a retention request. Most notably, an August 23, 2002 e-mail from the plaintiff's Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officer ("PEBLO"), which the plaintiff cited to the Board and cites in his Amended Complaint, see A.R. at 40-41; Am. Compl. ¶ 34, stated that the plaintiff "ha[d] not overcome the presumption of fitness rule" contained in Army Regulation 635-40 ¶ 3-2b(2). See A.R. at 61. That presumption of fitness only applies "[w]hen a soldier is being processed for separation or retirement." See Army Reg. 635-40 ¶ 3-2b(2).
Furthermore, the Board's decision to deny the plaintiff's requested relief is also supported by the July 30, 2002 e-mail from an NGB personnel staff officer, which the plaintiff submitted in support of his application. See A.R. at 7, 62. That e-mail, which the Board specifically discussed, see id. at 7, 12, stated that, as of July 30, 2002, the plaintiff was still "working his packet and will forward it to [the NGB personnel officer] when it is complete." Id. at 62. As the Board observed in its decision, this e-mail "shows that, as late as 30 July 2002, the applicant had not forwarded a package to the NGB office responsible for granting extensions." Id. at 12. The Court agrees with the reasoning of the Board on this point and finds that the Board's conclusion that the plaintiff had not submitted an extension request is supported by substantial evidence.
Finally, even had the plaintiff been able to present evidence that he submitted a retention request, the Board's alternative conclusions that (1) "[h]ad such a request been submitted earlier, it appears the NGB could have had it approved with a waiver or pending the MMRB," and (2) "there is no evidence [the retention request] was submitted early enough to allow the NGB to process it prior to [the plaintiff's] retirement," see A.R. at 12-13, were substantially supported by military regulations. First, it is clear that, even assuming the plaintiff had submitted a selective retention request packet in February 2002, that submission would have been in violation of National Guard regulations, which state that retention requests "should be forwarded to [Army NGB headquarters] 12 months prior to the soldier completing maximum years of Active Federal Service." See NGR 600-5 ¶ 5-4a(3) (1990) (emphasis added). Under that regulation,
In line with the foregoing discussion, the Court concludes that the Board's "explanations for [its] choice demonstrate that [it] `permissibly exercised [its] discretion and made a choice that is supported by at least substantial evidence.'" Hill, 597 F.Fupp.2d at 29. Although the plaintiff seeks de novo review of the Board's analysis, it is not this Court's place to determine whether the Board's decision was "substantively correct." Id. The Board's decision was neither "arbitrary and capricious" nor "unsupported by substantial evidence," and therefore the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment will be granted, and the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment will be denied.
It is unfortunate that, after a long and productive career in the U.S. Army, the plaintiff's tenure came to such a contentious conclusion. Although the plaintiff will not retire at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel as a result of the Board's decision, his twenty-plus years of distinguished service to this country should be a source of continued satisfaction and pride.
As the foregoing discussion concludes, the plaintiff has not established sufficient grounds to supplement the administrative record in this action, and therefore the plaintiff's motion to supplement the administrative record is denied. Furthermore, the plaintiff waived his ability to argue, as he attempts to argue before this Court, that his referral to an MMRB was offered as evidence that the plaintiff had submitted an active-duty extension request. Finally, the Court concludes that the plaintiff has not presented any sufficient grounds to set aside the Board's September 2010 decision to deny the plaintiff the relief he requested. As a result, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted, and the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment is denied.
An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Esch, 876 F.2d at 991 (quoting Stark & Wald, Setting No Records, 36 ADMIN. L. REV. at 345). More recently, the D.C. Circuit "appears to have narrowed these exceptions to four: (1) when the agency failed to examine all relevant factors; (2) when the agency failed to explain adequately its grounds for its decision; (3) when the agency acted in bad faith; or (4) when the agency engaged in improper behavior." National Mining Ass'n, 856 F.Supp.2d at 156-57 (citing IMS, 129 F.3d at 624).
