Barnett v. United States Air Force et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
MAJOR SEAN BARNETT,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEFENSE HEALTH AGENCY,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 3:25-cv-228
Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION TO
COMPLETE THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD (DOC. NO. 94)
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is currently before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion
to Complete the Administrative Record (“Motion”) (Doc. No. 94). 	Plaintiff Sean Barnett
(“Barnett”) brought the instant action against Defendant the Defense Health Agency (“DHA”)
pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq. (“APA”), based on the
DHA’s decision to suspend, and ultimately revoke, Barnett’s privileges to practice medicine at the
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Medical Center. (See Doc. No. 1 at PageID 4-5.) The DHA has
since filed an administrative record for the Court’s review. 	(See Doc. No. 90.) 	As his case
proceeds to dispositive motion practice, Barnett decries the DHA’s administrative record as
incomplete and, by his Motion, seeks to add material to the administrative record to his own
personal satisfaction. (See Doc. No. 94.)
To that end, Barnett makes several sweeping arguments pertaining to a need to complete
the administrative record in this case. 	(Id. at PageID 6905-09.) 	Without regard for whether
Barnett’s arguments make sense, the Court notes Barnett’s assertion that the administrative record
submitted by DHA “omits chronology-dependent communications and supporting materials
Case: 3:25-cv-00228-TMR-MRM Doc #: 102 Filed: 07/10/26 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
necessary to reconstruct the actual decisional sequence.” 	(Id. at PageID 6906.) 	Barnett further
posits that “[t]he [administrative record] repeatedly references categories of materials that are not
themselves included despite their apparent role in shaping the challenged actions.” (Id. at PageID
6907.) He similarly claims that he made a number of communications and submissions that were
improperly excluded from the DHA’s administrative record here. (Id. at PageID 6908-09.) In all,
Barnett submits that the Court cannot meaningfully review the administrative record at issue
because, in his view, these supposed deficiencies “impair the Court’s ability to reconstruct the
actual chronology, evidentiary development, and decisional pathway underlying the challenged
actions.” (Id. at PageID 6909.) Liberally construing his argument, the Court takes Barnett to mean
that the current administrative record lacks background information necessary for the Court to
determine whether the ultimate decision to revoke Barnett’s practice privileges was arbitrary,
capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.
Nonetheless, Barnett’s present Motion cannot be well-taken. “The APA requires courts to
‘review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party.’” Sierra Club v. Slater, 120 F.3d
623, 638 (6th Cir. 1997) (quoting 5 U.S.C § 706). “‘The task of the reviewing court is to apply
the appropriate APA standard of review, 5 U.S.C. § 706, to the agency decision based on the
record the agency presents to the reviewing court.’” Little Traverse Lake Prop. Owners Ass’n. v.
Nat’l. Park Serv., 883 F.3d 644, 657 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorian,
470 U.S. 729, 743-44 (1985)) (emphasis in original). Along these lines, governmental conduct is
subject to a “presumption of legitimacy,” and “clear evidence is usually required to displace it.”
Nat’l. Archives & Recs. Admin. V. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 174 (2004) (citing United States v.
Armstrong, 517 U.S. 	456, 464 (1996); United States v. Chem. Found., Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15
(1926)). 	In APA cases, this principle simply means that “[t]he agency’s designation of the
Case: 3:25-cv-00228-TMR-MRM Doc #: 102 Filed: 07/10/26 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
[a]dministrative [r]ecord is entitled to a presumption of regularity.” Partners in Forestry Co-op v.
U.S. Forest Serv., 45 F. Supp. 3d 677, 682 (W.D. Mich. 2014) (citing Bar MK Ranches v. Yuetter,
994 F.2d 735, 740 (10th Cir. 1993)), aff’d sub nom., Partners in Forestry Co-op, Northwood All.,
Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 638 F. App’x. 546 (6th Cir. 2015).
The 	presumption 	of 	regularity 	is 	rebuttable 	though 	and 	supplementation 	of 	the
administrative record may be appropriate where the plaintiff can clearly demonstrate that “an
agency deliberately or negligently exclude[d] certain documents, or when the court needs certain
‘background information in order to determine whether the agency considered all of the relevant
factors.’” Sierra Club, 120 F.3d at 638 (quoting James Madison Ltd. by Hecht b. Ludwig, 82 F.3d
1085, 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1996); citing also United States v. Akzo Coatings of Am., Inc., 949 F.2d
1409, 1428 (6th Cir. 1991)) (cleaned up). Further, some “[c]ourts have suggested that in order to
justify supplementation, a plaintiff must make a strong showing of bad faith.” Id. (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted). In any event, “[b]are assertions or conjecture will not do.” Ky.
Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 349 F.R.D. 272, 278 (E.D. Ky. 2025).
Here, Barnett has failed to clearly demonstrate that the administrative record at issue is
somehow incomplete. 	In essence, Barnett claims that the DHA’s administrative record is
incomplete because he is not personally satisfied with the background information provided
therein. For example, he states that, to complete the administrative record, he should be able to
deduce information such as “what investigative activity occurred before May 9, 2023,” or when
the allegations against Barnett at the administrative level “expanded or evolved.” (Doc. No. 94 at
PageID 6906.) 	As another example, Barnett has cried foul because the administrative record
references a patient complaint that was not itself included in the record. However, the referenced
complaint is in-fact in the administrative record (see Doc. No. 90-3 at DHA_170-72) and, at any
Case: 3:25-cv-00228-TMR-MRM Doc #: 102 Filed: 07/10/26 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
rate, “there is no requirement that the administrative record include all underlying sources unless
the report relies so heavily on the underlying sources that the agency might fairly be said to have
considered the sources merely by considering the documents in which they were cited.” Partners
in Forestry, 45 F. Supp. 3d at 682-83 (citation omitted). Such is not the case here and Barnett does
not offer clear evidence otherwise. 	Rather, Barnett supposes that the administrative record is
incomplete per se because it does not flesh out every detail of the events leading up to the DHA’s
decision to initiate administrative action against him, and because certain portions of the
administrative record do not—in his view—come with adequate underlying documentation.
Absent clear evidence, Barnett’s arguments are little more than thought exercises. In all
reality, it is not clear to the Court that the information sought by Barnett is relevant at all, much
less necessary for the Court to meaningfully consider his APA claim. If Barnett thinks that the
administrative record here is insufficient to justify the DHA’s decision to revoke his medical
privileges, he can certainly argue as much on the merits. 	Indeed, he has, by way of dispositive
motion (see Doc. No. 96 at PageID 6946-49), and the Court intends to deliberate on the issue
accordingly. 	But, the contention is purely conjectural when aimed at completion of the
administrative record. Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Complete the Administrative Record (Doc.
No. 94) is, therefore, DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Friday, July 10, 2026.
s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 3:25-cv-00228-TMR-MRM Doc #: 102 Filed: 07/10/26 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>