VIOLATIONS OF DUE PROCESS

Joshua A. Pruitt

2427 Avenue T. Ensley

Birmingham, AL 35218.

[telephone]

[email]

Pro Se Litigant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

The Plaintiff, Joshua A. Pruitt, brings this action against the Department of the Army alleging (1) wrongful discharge from active duty based on a faulty medical diagnosis and (2) improper failure to correct military records

Nature of action

• This is an action for the reversal of the Plaintiff’s discharge from military service pursuant to the Defendant’s decision to dishonourable discharge the Plaintiff on 28^th August 2005.

PARTIES

• Plaintiff, Joshua A. Pruitt, is a resident of Alabama.
• At all times, Defendant is the Department of the Army under the Secretary of the Army.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

• This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1346 and the Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq. This court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims as an action is founded upon the regulation of an executive department; as a suit to redress actions and omission of the Department of Army and challenging the decision of the Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR) remedy and denial of the Plaintiff applications for the correction of the Plaintiff’s Military records. Furthermore, Plaintiff has explored all administrative remedies on most issues to the BCMR. Any requirement to exhaust administrative remedies on the remaining matters would cause irreparable harm given the timeframe for remaining service, promotion requirements, and timeframe of administrative remedies.

• The venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)(2) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

• On 11^th July, 2003, Plaintiff voluntarily enlisted in the United States Army Reserve, where he successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 21k, designation, plumber.
• On 14^th January, 2005, Plaintiff was ordered to active duty in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and was deployed to Afghanistan.
• While on active duty, Plaintiff was considered a hardworking and disciplined worker and supported the Operation in whatever manner possible.
• However, Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile environment where his fellow military men, including superiors, treated the Plaintiff unfairly, due to their perception that the Plaintiff acted as a member of the “African American community”.
• Following such perspective, the Plaintiff was isolated and treated unfairly in the middle of a warzone and away from the support of his family and friends.
• Plaintiff did not have any redress to express himself and was constrained to bottle-up and hide his problems and concerns.
• On 28^th August 2005, Plaintiff was court martialed for wrongful possession of hashish and was subsequently tried and convicted.
• Considering the high stress environment of a warzone, and the unsupportive nature of his fellow military men, no assessment was conducted to ascertain the mental health was sound or otherwise.
• Consequent of the court martial, on 17^th August 2007, the Plaintiff was discharged from the Army with a bad conduct discharge under the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Army Regulation 635-200.
• Sometimes in early 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Army Board For Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) seeking order correcting his retirement status and seeking declaratory relief and an award of back pay. 
• On April 15, 2008, the application proceeded before the board for consideration for hearing. Unfortunately, the application was denied by the board and the Plaintiff was notified of the same on April 17, 2008.
• Again, sometime in early 2015, Plaintiff filed a second application seeking an order correcting his retirement status and seeking declaratory relief and an award of back pay. Again, 9^th April 2015 the Plaintiff’s application was denied and the Plaintiff was notified of the same on April 10, 2015.
• Sometimes in 2016, Plaintiff visited a mental health specialist by the name Ronal Koshes for specialized attention. Plaintiff had become aware that he was unable to cope properly with his environment and was concerned for his mental wellbeing.
• During Plaintiff’s sessions with Dr. Koshes, it became apparent that the Plaintiff suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, which disorder Dr. Koshes was able to trace to the Plaintiff’s time in Afghanistan in the year 2005.
• Dr. Koshes further informed the Plaintiff that given the PTSD diagnosis, the Plaintiff ought to have received a mental assessment prior to his discharge.
• Plaintiff was never properly diagnosed pursuant to the Hagel Memo and instead was court martialed and discharged from military service for bad conduct.
• Since start of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army discharged thousands of men and women with Other Than Honorable (“OTH”) or General (Under Honorable Conditions) (“GEN”) statuses due to misconduct attributable to post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), traumatic brain injury (“TBI”), and related mental health conditions.
• Rather than addressing the needs of the Plaintiff with service-connected PTSD, TBI, and other related mental health conditions, Plaintiff instead receive OTH discharge and was systematically denied a status upgrade by the Army even as scientific and medical understanding of PTSD and TBI advanced and explained how these conditions can affect soldiers’ behavior.
• The Hagel Memo states: “In cases in which PTSD or PTSD-related conditions may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service.”
• Plaintiff further states that, despite the 1944 statute creating the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), longstanding regulations, and binding Department of Defense guidance that clarified the ADRB’s obligation to give liberal consideration to the applications of former soldiers who incurred these mental health conditions, the ADRB systematically failed to apply appropriate decisional standards or provide due consideration, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
• Sometime early in the year 2017, Plaintiff filed yet another application for consideration by the ABCMR seeking upgrade of discharge status and reenlistment to the military.
• True to the Defendant’s character, the Plaintiff’s application was denied on March 28, 2017, and notice was issued to the Plaintiff on March 31, 2017.
• The Defendant failed to adhere to the instructions relevant to service-members’ PTSD and related mental health conditions as set forth in the Hagel Memo.
• That the Plaintiff was procedurally discharged for bad conduct and denied due consideration for discharge status upgrade.

CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF US MILITARY REGULATIONS AND DUE PROCESS RIGHTS

• Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the previous paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
• ABCMR decision violated the A.P.A., 5 U.S.C. § 500 et seq. The decision was arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, and otherwise not following the law. The BCNR failed to address several non-frivolous claims. Defendant violated numerous policies, including the Hagel Memo, regarding upgrade of the Plaintiff’s discharge status.
• Consequently, the Plaintiff was not given all due process rights during the entire discharge, and appeal to the ABCMR process.
• The additional failure to follow requirements regarding the decision of the ADRB to discharge the Plaintiff dishonorably should lead to its removal from the Plaintiff’s service record as it fails to meet the requirements of the Hagel Memo.
• Several attempts were made during various periods to review the discharge status of the Plaintiff. The Army failed to respond appropriately to any objections or claims made or attempted to comply with all applicable laws, regulations and policies.
• With all of the issues presented to the Defendant, there was a failure to consider all claims, give rational explanations for decisions, or carry out appropriate actions. The Plaintiff has exhausted all available remedies with the ABCMR and as such the matter is now brought to the court for determination. These actions leave only one realistic solution for the court: to remove all Discharge documents, reverse the ADRB decision to deny the appeal applications, and to cause review and upgrade of the Plaintiff’s discharge status.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for:

1. Reversal and remand to the Department of the Army to render a decision on if the discharge status upgrade was improperly withheld and determine if Plaintiff is entitled to upgrade of discharge status;
2. Removal of all discharge documents;
3. The reversal and expunction of the ADRB decision to deny the appeal applications.
4. Actual and compensatory damages; for punitive or exemplary damages;
5. For costs herein incurred; and
6. For such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper.

Dated:  ____________________

Respectfully submitted,

By:__________________________

Joshua A. Pruitt

2427 Avenue T. Ensley

Birmingham, AL 35218.

[telephone]

[email]

Pro Se Litigant

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )