Background
Navy Petty Officer First Class (PO1) Ignatius M. Tee, Jr. was disenrolled from the Seaman to Admiral-21 (STA-21) officer-development program in November 2024 following successive Performance Review Boards (PRBs) that found he had engaged in inappropriate behavior toward fellow midshipmen. PO1 Tee challenged the Navy’s procedures, asserting four surviving claims: (1) failure to provide a complete preliminary inquiry report before the second PRB hearing, (2) violation of his Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 31 rights by drawing an adverse inference from his refusal to answer questions, (3) improper consideration of medical disqualification without affording him opportunity to respond, and (4) unlawful consideration of documents not previously disclosed to him.
The administrative record revealed significant procedural issues: PO1 Tee initially received a redacted version of the preliminary inquiry report with names, signatures, and contact information of witnesses and alleged victims removed. The Navy offered to let him review the unredacted report in-person with restrictions—no written notes, under supervision, weeks before the hearing—but he declined what he considered an unacceptable limitation on his ability to prepare his defense. He ultimately received the unredacted report minutes before the hearing commenced. The Navy also considered medical evaluations and multiple written submissions from officials that were not previously shared with PO1 Tee.
The Court of Federal Claims had previously granted-in-part and denied-in-part the government’s motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed to cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record. On June 17, 2026, the Court heard oral argument on the parties’ dispositive motions.
The Court’s Holding
The Court adopted a deferential standard of review, holding that military agency decisions are reviewed under the “arbitrary and capricious” standard—not de novo—even when a servicemember files directly in the Court of Federal Claims without first exhausting remedies with a military record correction board. The Court will not overturn a military decision unless it is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to law. Procedural errors warrant relief only if they “substantially affect the outcome” of the matter.
On the preliminary inquiry report claim, the Court held that the Navy satisfied its obligation to provide PO1 Tee with a “complete copy” by furnishing both a minimally redacted version and offering access to the unredacted version. The Court rejected a rigid interpretation of the disclosure requirement, instead reading it within the Naval Manual’s broader framework, which imposes both due-process protections and Privacy Act obligations to safeguard personally identifiable information of witnesses and alleged victims. The Navy’s redaction of names and contact information was permissible because it made the unredacted information “reasonably available” through in-person review with supervision—a reasonable balance between PO1 Tee’s right to defend himself and the Navy’s duty to protect witness privacy. The Court noted that PO1 Tee’s refusal to accept the Navy’s offered in-person review, however restrictive, could not make the Navy’s disclosure procedures unlawful.
The Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part PO1 Tee’s motion to supplement the administrative record with extra-record evidence and, ultimately, granted the government’s cross-motion for judgment on the administrative record. This upheld the Navy’s decision to disenroll PO1 Tee from the STA-21 program.
Key Takeaways
- Military administrative decisions receive highly deferential review in federal court; the standard is whether the decision is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to law—not de novo review of facts.
- Military agencies may redact personally identifiable information (names, contact information) from investigative reports to comply with Privacy Act obligations and protect witness privacy, provided the complete information is made reasonably available through alternative means.
- A procedurally imperfect military proceeding does not warrant reversal unless the defect substantially affects the outcome of the matter.
- When military agencies face competing obligations—such as providing due process to a defendant and protecting witness privacy—courts defer to the agency’s reasonable balancing of those interests.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the scope and limits of disclosure requirements in military Performance Review Board proceedings. It establishes that an officer candidate’s due-process right to access evidence is not absolute when weighed against legitimate government interests in protecting witness identity and safety. The ruling is significant for military practitioners and servicemembers facing administrative proceedings: it confirms that federal courts apply highly deferential review standards to military personnel decisions and will not second-guess military agencies’ procedural choices unless they are truly arbitrary or cause substantial prejudice to the outcome.
The opinion also defines how military agencies may operationalize competing statutory and regulatory requirements—such as Privacy Act protections and due-process rights—without incurring liability. For attorneys representing servicemembers in administrative proceedings, the decision underscores the importance of accepting alternative disclosure procedures offered by the military rather than categorical refusals, as courts will not invalidate a procedure based on a party’s rejection of a good-faith compliance effort. The case illustrates the high bar for overturning military administrative decisions in federal court and the weight given to military institutional concerns beyond pure fairness considerations.