CALIXTO v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT and Prayer for Declaratory, Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive, and Administrative Procedure Act Relief against MARK T. ESPER, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-5562488) filed by LUCAS CALIXTO. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Notice of Related Case, #3 Summons United States Department of the Army, #4 Summons Mark T. Esper, #5 Summons US Attorney General, #6 Summons US Attorney District of Columbia)(LoBue, Joseph)

Case 1:18-cv-01551-EGS Document 1 Filed 06/28/18 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
LUCAS CALIXTO,
21 Franklin St., Apt. 15
Somerville, MA 02145-3225,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

PLAINTIFF,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE
ARMY and MARK ESPER, in his official
capacity as Secretary, U.S. Department of the
Army
1500 Army Pentagon
Washington, DC 20310-1500,
DEFENDANTS.

No.

COMPLAINT AND PRAYER FOR
DECLARATORY, PRELIMINARY
AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE,
AND ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE ACT RELIEF

COMPLAINT
1.

Plaintiff Lucas Calixto is a Private Second Class (“PV2”) in the U.S. Army

Reserve who has served honorably for over two years. Plaintiff has never been subject to any
disciplinary action or proceeding and, in fact, recently earned a promotion in military rank. On
June 13, 2018, Defendants issued an order purporting to discharge PV2 Calixto from the U.S.
Army Reserve effective July 1, 2018.

PV2 Calixto was provided no prior notice of the

Defendants’ intent to discharge him, no specific reasons or grounds for the discharge (just a
generic categorization of “personnel security” on the discharge order), and none of the facts or
circumstances that purported to justify or explain the discharge. And Defendants afforded PV2
Calixto no opportunity to respond to or be heard on the matter of his discharge.

1

Case 1:18-cv-01551-EGS Document 1 Filed 06/28/18 Page 2 of 11

2.

Defendants’ conduct violates Army regulations, Department of Defense

regulations, and the fundamental requirements of due process. PV2 Calixto brings this action to
set aside the purported discharge order pending Defendants’ compliance with applicable law.
JURISDICTION
3.

This action arises under the laws of the United States and the U.S. Constitution.

This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and the
Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.
VENUE
4.

Venue is proper in the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because the individual

Defendant is an officer of the United States acting in his official capacity in this district, and
venue is proper because the United States Department of the Army is present in this district.
PARTIES
5.

Plaintiff Lucas Calixto resides in Somerville, Massachusetts.

PV2 Calixto

currently is serving in the U.S. Army Reserve with the 743rd Transportation Company in
Roslindale, Massachusetts.
6.

Defendant United States Department of the Army (the “Army”) is responsible for

the overall administration of policy for the U.S. Army and Army Reserve.
7.

Defendant Mark Esper is sued in his official capacity as Secretary of the Army. In

that capacity, Mr. Esper is responsible for the overall administration of Department of the Army
and Army Reserve.
8.

Defendants Army and Esper are collectively referred to as “Defendants.”

2

Case 1:18-cv-01551-EGS Document 1 Filed 06/28/18 Page 3 of 11

BACKGROUND AND FACTS
PV2 Calixto’s Military Service
9.

PV2 Calixto enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve in February 2016 and signed an

enlistment contract obligating him to serve eight years in the Army Reserve, six years of which
must be served in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve. The Selected Reserve “consists of
those units and individuals in the Ready Reserve designated . . . as so essential to initial wartime
missions that they have priority over all other Reserves.”
10.

PV2 Calixto is a non-U.S. citizen who was recruited by and enlisted in the U.S.

Army Reserve through the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (“MAVNI”)
program. Although enlistment in the United States Armed Forces normally is limited to U.S.
citizens and legal permanent residents, the MAVNI program, which was touted by the Army and
the Department of Defense as a program “vital to the national interest,” permitted certain
non-U.S. citizens to enlist and serve if they possess critical language skills or other specialized
skills that are vitally needed by the military branches. Soldiers who enlisted under the program
were promised an “expedited” path to U.S. citizenship.
11.

Upon enlistment, the Army found PV2 Calixto suitable for military service and

assigned him to the 743rd Transportation Company (“743rd TC”) in Roslindale, Massachusetts.
He took his service oath on March 16, 2016, and began serving with the 743rd TC as a Private (E1) over two years ago.
12.

In March 2017, in accordance with the requirements of the MAVNI program and

his enlistment contract, PV2 Calixto submitted his N-400 Application for Naturalization to the
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”). As part of the naturalization application

3

Case 1:18-cv-01551-EGS Document 1 Filed 06/28/18 Page 4 of 11

process, an authorized official from PV2 Calixto’s command signed Form N-426 certifying PV2
Calixto’s honorable service in the Selected Reserve of the U.S. Army Reserve.
13.

PV2 Calixto’s N-400 Application for Naturalization is pending at USCIS.

Recently, on May 10, 2018, the Army again confirmed PV2 Calixto’s honorable service through
execution and provision of another Form N-426.
14.

On June 13, 2018, Headquarters, U.S. Army Reserve Command issued order

number 18-164-00004 purporting to discharge PV2 Calixto from the U.S. Army Reserve
effective July 1, 2018 (the “Discharge Order”).

No reason for the discharge was stated

specifically in the Discharge Order. Instead, the following general notation was included under
the heading Additional Instructions: “MAVNI – Military Personnel Security.” PV2 Calixto was
given no prior notice of the Army’s intent to discharge him, no specific reason or grounds for the
discharge, and none of the facts and circumstances purportedly justifying his discharge from the
U.S. Army Reserve. Furthermore, PV2 Calixto was provided no opportunity to respond to or
otherwise be heard on the matter of his purported discharge.
15.

On June 18, 2018, PV2 Calixto submitted a request through his chain of

command for the Army to rescind and revoke the Discharge Order because of the Army’s failure
to comply with regulations. PV2 Calixto has received no response from the Army.
The Army’s Violation of Regulations and Due Process
16.

The Discharge Order violated the Army regulations, Department of Defense

regulations, and the fundamental requirements of due process.
17.

Administrative separation and discharge from the U.S. Army Reserve is governed

by Army Regulation 135-178. These regulations provide that, when a soldier is to be discharged
under the personnel security category (or for “security reasons”), the soldier shall be processed in

4

Case 1:18-cv-01551-EGS Document 1 Filed 06/28/18 Page 5 of 11

accordance with Army Regulation 380-67. See AR 135-178 at 15-1h. Army Regulation 380-67
in turn provides that:
[N]o unfavorable administrative action shall be taken under the authority of this
regulation unless the person concerned has been given:
a. A written statement of the reasons why the unfavorable administrative action is
being taken. The statement shall be as comprehensive and detailed as the
protection of sources afforded confidentiality under the provisions of the Privacy
Act of 1974 (5 USC 552a) and national security permit. . . .
b. An opportunity to reply in writing to such authority as the head of the
component may designate. . . .
c. A written response to any submission under paragraph b, stating the final
reasons therefore, which shall be as specific as privacy and national security
considerations permit.
Army Regulation 380-67 at 8-6.
18.

The regulations define “unfavorable administrative action” to include any

“[a]dverse action taken as the result of personnel security determinations and unfavorable
security determinations,” which are further defined to include any “nonacceptance for or
discharge from the Armed Forces when any of the foregoing actions are based on derogatory
information of personnel security significance.” Army Regulation 380-67, Glossary Section II
(Terms).
19.

Defendants violated their own regulations by purporting to discharge PV2 Calixto

for personnel security reasons without affording him the notice and response rights set forth in
Army Regulation 380-67.
20.

The Discharge Order also violated Department of Defense regulations, which are

mandatory and binding on the Army. Pursuant to Department of Defense Instruction (“DoDI”)
5200.02, all members of the military are deemed to hold “national security positions.” DoDI
5200.02, Glossary Part II (Definitions); see also DoD Manual 5200.02, 7.6(b) (“All military

5

Case 1:18-cv-01551-EGS Document 1 Filed 06/28/18 Page 6 of 11

positions are national security positions regardless whether or not the Service member requires
access to classified information, as established in DoDI 5200.02.”). PV2 Calixto previously had
been found eligible for service in a “national security position” and has in fact already served for
more than two years as a soldier in the U.S. Army Reserve. The Army’s purported discharge of
PV2 Calixto on personnel security grounds thus constitutes a denial or revocation of his
eligibility to hold a national security position.
21.

With regard to such denials or revocations of eligibility, DoDI 5200.02 provides:

APPEAL PROCEDURES – DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF ELIGIBILITY.
Individuals may elect to appeal unfavorable security determinations in accordance
with the procedures set forth in . . . [DoD Manual 5200.02], as applicable, or as
otherwise authorized by law.
DoDI 5200.02, Enclosure 3, Section 4.
22.

DoD Manual 5200.02 in turn provides that “[m]ilitary members who are denied or

revoked a favorable national security eligibility determination will be afforded due process.”
DoD Manual 5200.02, 7.6 b(2)(a). DoD Manual 5200.02 defines “national security eligibility”
as “[t]he status that results from a formal determination by an adjudication facility that a person
meets the personnel security requirements for access to classified information or to occupy a
national security position or one requiring the performance of national security duties.” DoD
Manual 5200.02, Glossary Section G.2 (Definitions) (emphasis added). Because “[a]ll military
positions are national security positions,” see DoD Manual 5200.02, 7.6(b), any decision to
separate a soldier from the military on personnel security grounds is, by definition, a “national
security eligibility” determination.
23.

That manual further provides:

MINIMUM DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO ALL. No
unfavorable national security eligibility determination will be made without first:

6

Case 1:18-cv-01551-EGS Document 1 Filed 06/28/18 Page 7 of 11

a. Providing the individual with a comprehensive and detailed written explanation
of the basis for the unfavorable determination as the national security interests of
the United States and other applicable law permit. The [Letter of Denial] or
[Letter of Revocation] must include each security concern, the applicable
adjudicative guideline(s) related to each concern, and provide an explanation of
the kinds and types of information they could provide to support their appeal.
b. Informing the individual of their right to:
(1) Be represented by counsel or other representative at their own expense.
(2) Request the documents, records, and reports upon which the unfavorable
national security determination was made. Be granted an extension to set the
timeline by the Component [Personnel Security Appeal Board] if requested
documents, records, and reports are not provided promptly.
c. Providing a reasonable opportunity to reply in writing and to request review of
the unfavorable determination.
d. Providing the individual written notice of reasons for the determination, the
determination of each adjudicative guideline that was provided to the individual in
the statement of reasons (SOR) that accompanied the notification of intent (NOI)
to deny or revoke the identity of the determination authority, and written notice of
the right to appeal unfavorable determinations to a high-level panel. . . .
f. Providing the individual an opportunity to appear in person and present
relevant witnesses, documents, materials, and information.
g. Providing the individual with a written decision on appeal.
DoD Manual 5200.02 at 10.2.
24.

Still further due process rights and procedures for military members are set forth

in Section 10.4 of DoD Manual 5200.02.
25.

Defendants violated applicable law by purporting to discharge PV2 Calixto under

the personnel security category without affording him the rights and procedures mandated by
DoDI 5200.02 and DoD Manual 5200.02 (incorporated in DoDI 5200.02 by reference).

7

Case 1:18-cv-01551-EGS Document 1 Filed 06/28/18 Page 8 of 11

26.

Finally, Defendants violated the fundamental requirements of due process under

the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by purporting to discharge PV2 Calixto from the
U.S. Army Reserve without providing him with any process at all.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Count I: Declaratory Judgment
27.

Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs one through twenty-six as if fully set forth herein.

28.

28 U.S.C. § 2201 authorizes a court, “[i]n a case of actual controversy within its

jurisdiction . . . upon the filing of an appropriate pleading” to “declare the rights and other legal
relations of any interested party seeking such declaration.”
29.

Army and Department of Defense regulations set forth specific due process rights

that must be afforded to soldiers before they are discharged from military service on personnel
security grounds. Defendants failed to comply with those requirements, even after being notified
of the same by PV2 Calixto. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that, in issuing
the Discharge Order, Defendants failed to comply with Army Regulation 135-178, Army
Regulation 380-67, DoDI 5200.02, and DoD Manual 5200.02 (incorporated in DoDI 5200.02 by
reference).
Count II: Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief
30.

Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs one through twenty-nine as if fully set forth herein.

31.

Defendants unlawfully and improperly issued the Discharge Order without

complying with applicable law including, without limitation, the requirements of Army
Regulation 135-178, Army Regulation 380-67, DoDI 5200.02, and DoD Manual 5200.02
(incorporated in DoDI 5200.02 by reference).

8

Case 1:18-cv-01551-EGS Document 1 Filed 06/28/18 Page 9 of 11

32.

Plaintiff has been, and will continue to be, substantially and irreparably harmed by

Defendants’ unlawful and improper actions, for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the balance of the equities clearly favors PV2
Calixto, and injunctive relief is in the public interest.
33.

Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks preliminary injunctive relief against Defendants

setting aside the effectiveness of the Discharge Order pending compliance with applicable law
including, without limitation, the requirements of Army Regulation 135-178, Army Regulation
380-67, DoDI 5200.02, and DoD Manual 5200.02 (incorporated in DoDI 5200.02 by reference).
34.

Plaintiff seeks permanent injunctive relief against Defendants directing

Defendants to rescind and revoke the Discharge Order pending compliance with applicable law
including, without limitation, the requirements of Army Regulation 135-178, Army Regulation
380-67, DoDI 5200.02, and DoD Manual 5200.02 (incorporated in DoDI 5200.02 by reference).
Count III: Relief Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act
35.

Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs one through thirty-four as if fully set forth herein.

36.

5 U.S.C. § 706(2) authorizes a court to hold unlawful and set aside final agency

action found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance
with law, or without observance of procedure required by law.
37.

Defendants have issued the Discharge Order without complying with applicable

law including, without limitation, the requirements of Army Regulation 135-178, Army
Regulation 380-67, DoDI 5200.02, and DoD Manual 5200.02 (incorporated in DoDI 5200.02 by
reference). Defendants’ action therefore is not in accordance with law and was undertaken
without observance of procedure required by law. Furthermore, Defendants’ action was arbitrary
and capricious because Defendants failed to comply with their own regulations.

9

Case 1:18-cv-01551-EGS Document 1 Filed 06/28/18 Page 10 of 11

38.

Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks an order holding unlawful and setting aside the

Discharge Order pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).
Count IV: Constitutional Violation
39.

Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs one through thirty-eight as if fully set forth herein.

40.

The Discharge Order deprived Plaintiff of a constitutionally-protected liberty

and/or property interest, including with respect to his reputation, ability to pursue his chosen
career, and timely and appropriate adjudication of his right to naturalization. Defendants issued
the Discharge Order without providing Plaintiff with any notice or opportunity to be heard. In
short, Defendants provided Plaintiff with no process of any kind.

Thus, Defendants have

violated Plaintiff’s right to due process under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
41.

Plaintiff requests that the Court grant appropriate equitable relief on the foregoing

basis.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
a. Assume jurisdiction over this action;
b. Issue the declaratory judgment requested in Count I of this Complaint;
c. Grant the preliminary and permanent injunctive relief requested in Count II of this
Complaint;
d. Grant the relief requested pursuant to the APA (Count III of this Complaint);
e. Grant the relief requested pursuant to Count IV of this Complaint;
f. Award Plaintiff reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees, including under the Equal
Access to Justice Act; and
g. Award such further relief as the Court deems just or appropriate.

10

Case 1:18-cv-01551-EGS Document 1 Filed 06/28/18 Page 11 of 11

Respectfully submitted this 28th day of June 2018.

/s/ Joseph J. LoBue
Joseph J. LoBue (D.C. Bar No. 484097)
Douglas W. Baruch (D.C. Bar No. 414354)
Jennifer M. Wollenberg (D.C. Bar No. 494895)
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP
801 17th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Counsel for Plaintiff

11