HOLMES v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, No. 4:2013cv00159 - Document 9 (M.D. Ga. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER granting 8 Motion for Summary Judgment. Ordered by U.S. District Judge CLAY D LAND on 03/17/2014 (jcs)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
HOLMES v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Doc. 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION ROBERT HOLMES, JR., * Plaintiff, * vs. * DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, FOR CORRECTION BOARD – MILITARY RECORDS #20120017732, CASE NO. 4:13-CV-159 (CDL) ARMY * OF AR * * Defendants. * O R D E R Ten years after his honorable discharge, Plaintiff Robert Holmes, Jr. (“Holmes”) sought to change his military records to reflect a medical disability discharge. After the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (“ABCMR”) denied his request, he filed the present action for judicial review pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. He contends that the ABCMR’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law, and he asks the Court to order the requested change to his records and to award him all benefits to which he would have been entitled had he been discharged with medical retirement status on September 12, 2001. Defendants respond that this action fails as a matter of law because the ABCMR’s decision was reasonable and supported by evidence in the record. Presently pending before the Court is Defendants’ Dockets.Justia.com motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 8). se, failed to file a response. Holmes, proceeding pro For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 1 Summary judgment may be granted only “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Civ. P. 56(a). In determining whether a genuine Fed. R. dispute of material fact exists to defeat a motion for summary judgment, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment, drawing all justifiable inferences in the opposing party’s favor. 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., A fact is material if it is relevant or necessary to the outcome of the suit. Id. at 248. A factual dispute is genuine if the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. To set aside an agency action, a reviewing court must find that the action was “arbitrary, capricious, an discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” § 706(2)(A). This standard of review is abuse of 5 U.S.C. “exceedingly deferential” in that the reviewing court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the agency as long as the agency’s 1 Defendants also seek to have this action dismissed to the extent that Holmes contends that his request for reconsideration was improperly denied. Because the Court finds the ABCMR’s underlying decision to deny his request to change his records to reflect a medical retirement was not arbitrary and capricious, Holmes’s claim regarding the refusal to reconsider is rendered moot. 2 conclusions are found to be rational. Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. Dep’t of the Navy, 733 F.3d 1106, 1115 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. United States, 566 F.3d 1257, 1264 (11th Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, 526 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2008) (“The court’s role is to ensure that the agency came to a rational conclusion, not to conduct its own investigation and substitute its own judgment for the administrative agency’s decision.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Rice, 85 F.3d 535, 541-42 (11th Cir. 1996) (describing the narrow standard as giving “the least latitude in finding grounds for reversal”). An agency decision is not rational if the agency “‘relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem,’” or offered an explanation “‘that runs counter to the evidence’” or that “‘is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference Defenders in of view or Wildlife, the 733 product F.3d at of 1115 agency expertise.’” (quoting Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 566 F.3d at 1264). Holmes, a former captain in the United States Army, sought medical retirement from the military in late 2001. Previously in 2000, the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) had given Holmes a disability rating of 100% due to post-traumatic stress disorder. The medical retirement process was never completed, 3 and Holmes received an honorable discharge rather than medical retirement. That discharge was effective January 1, 2002. Letter from U.S. Dep’t of the Army to R. Holmes (Nov. 6, 2001), ECF No. 8-4 at 41. Almost ten years later, Holmes requested that the ABCMR change his military records to reflect medical retirement. Application for Correction of Military Record (Oct. 27, 2011), ECF No. 8-3 at 58. request was not filed The ABCMR determined that his within the three-year statute of limitations, but nevertheless conducted a substantive review to determine whether it would be “in the interest of justice to excuse” the untimely filing pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b). ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20110021740 1 (Aug. 2, 2012), ECF No. 8-2 at 21. The ABCMR found insufficient evidence to excuse the ten-year delay and insufficient evidence that Holmes should have received medical retirement under the Physical Disability Evaluation System. reconsideration, but Id. the at ABCMR 2-3. returned Holmes his requested request without action pursuant to Army Regulation 15-185 ¶ 2-15(a). Letter from C. Meyer to R. Holmes (May 10, 2013), ECF No. 8-2 at 4. The Court finds that the ABCMR’s denial of Holmes’s request to change his military records was not arbitrary and capricious. The ABCMR considered the application and documents submitted by Holmes as well as his military personnel records and provided a rational explanation based on that 4 evidence to support its conclusions denying Proceedings disability Holmes’s AR20110021740 status at request. 1-3. the Holmes time he ABCMR was aware received Record of of VA his his honorable discharge instead of medical retirement, yet he did not request the change until nearly seven years after the three-year statute of limitations expired. Id. Moreover, his official records failed to show that he should have been deemed unable to perform his military duties under the Physical Disability Evaluation System, even though he had been deemed disabled under the VA standards. standards The ABCMR explained that the VA applies different and policies when making disability ratings. Id. Because the ABCMR rationally concluded that it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the untimely filing and grant the relief sought, ABCMR’s decision. (citing Miccosukee Therefore, the Defendants. there is no basis for setting aside the See Defenders of Wildlife, 733 F.3d at 1115 Tribe Court of grants Indians, summary 566 F.3d judgment in at 1264). favor of See Rease v. Harvey, 238 F. App’x 492, 493-94 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (affirming summary judgment against pro se plaintiff medical seeking discharge change because in military ABCMR’s record decision not untimely request was not arbitrary and capricious). 5 to to reflect excuse CONCLUSION For the reasons explained above, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 8) is granted. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 17th day of March, 2014. S/Clay D. Land CLAY D. LAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
