Case Explained: MICHAEL C. BAXLEY v. DANIEL DRISCOLL

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Filed: 2026-06-26 The D.C. Circuit reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (Board) regarding the appellant’s claim under the 1976 U.S. Army Regulation 600-85 Exemption Policy, while affirming the summary judgment on his claim regarding the Kurta Memorandum. The court held that the Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to engage with the central question of whether the evidence introduced at Baxley’s 1976 discharge hearing—specifically his designation as a “rehabilitation failure”—constituted exempt information developed by or resulting from statements made to ADAPCP counselors. The court applied the standard of review under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), which requires agency action not to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. The opinion noted that the 1976 Exemption Policy mandated an “honorable” discharge if prohibited evidence was initially introduced by the Army prosecutor, a rule that is categorical and allows no harmless error analysis. The Board erred by adopting a blanket position that rehabilitation failure designations could never fall within the policy’s scope without investigating whether those designations were derived from protected communications with counselors, as required by the regulation’s text and the commander’s duty to consult with program staff. Consequently, the case was remanded to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion to determine if the rehabilitation failure designation was based on exempt evidence. Conversely, the court affirmed the District Court’s ruling on the Kurta Memorandum issue, finding that the Board had sufficiently engaged with the guidance’s non-binding questions regarding mental health conditions and that its conclusion that Baxley’s misconduct outweighed any mitigating factors was not arbitrary or capricious. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.