The United States Court of Federal Claims has weighed in on a case involving Ignatius M. Tee, Jr., a former U.S. Navy aviation structural mechanic, and his disenrollment from the Seaman to Admiral-21 (STA-21) program. The court’s decision, issued on November 10, 2025, partially sided with the government, dismissing several of Tee’s claims while allowing others to move forward.
Background of the Case
Ignatius M. Tee, Jr. enlisted in the Navy in 2015 and served as an aviation structural mechanic, eventually reaching the rank of Petty Officer First Class (PO1/E-6). In 2022, he was accepted into the prestigious STA-21 program, which allows enlisted sailors to earn a commission as an officer while earning a bachelor’s degree. The STA-21 program provided tuition reimbursement.
During his second year in the three-year program at the University of Arizona, allegations of inappropriate behavior led to the convening of Performance Review Boards (PRBs) by his commanding officer. These proceedings resulted in Tee’s disenrollment from the STA-21 program. He has since returned to active duty as an enlisted service member, and the Navy declined to reimburse certain tuition payments.
Tee filed a lawsuit challenging the procedures used by the Navy in convening and conducting the PRBs and his subsequent disenrollment. He sought to have the findings of the PRBs overturned, be reinstated in the STA-21 program, and receive backpay in the form of tuition reimbursement.
The Court’s Decision: Key Findings
The court addressed several key issues in its ruling:
Mootness: The court found that some of Tee’s claims were “moot,” meaning there was no longer a real dispute for the court to resolve. Specifically, the court determined that the recommendations of the first PRB (PRB-1) were rendered void when the Navy decided to convene a second PRB (PRB-2). Because the Navy essentially gave Tee the relief he sought regarding PRB-1, the court dismissed claims related to it.
Money-Mandating: The court rejected the government’s argument that certain Navy regulations and a Department of Defense Instruction cited by Tee were not “money-mandating.” The court clarified that Tee was not directly claiming that violations of these regulations entitled him to money damages, but rather that these violations demonstrated the legal problems with the Navy’s actions that led to his loss of tuition reimbursement.
Failure to State a Claim: The court addressed several specific claims made by Tee:
* PRB-2 Procedures: The court dismissed Tee’s claim that the Navy improperly withheld documents and information, as well as his claim regarding the procedures used in PRB-2.
* Due Process Violations: Tee alleged several due process violations during the PRB-2 hearing. The court declined to dismiss these claims, noting that a full review of the administrative record was needed to determine whether violations occurred.
* BUMED Letter: Tee challenged the Navy’s purported reliance on a letter from the Navy Bureau of Medicine (BUMED). The court declined to dismiss this claim, stating that more information was needed to understand the impact of the BUMED letter on Tee’s disenrollment.
* Lesser Punitive Measures: The court dismissed Tee’s claim that his command should have used lesser punitive measures before disenrollment, finding that the relevant regulations gave the commanding officer discretion in choosing disciplinary actions.
* Aptitude Deficiency: The court also dismissed Tee’s claim that the Navy improperly based his disenrollment on an aptitude deficiency rather than a serious offense, stating that the regulations allowed for disenrollment based on aptitude.
The Court’s Order
The court’s order granted the government’s motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. Specifically, the court dismissed Counts I, II, and VI–IX, and dismissed aspects of Counts III and IV. The court denied the motion to dismiss as to Count V and the remaining claims in Counts III and IV. The court also denied the government’s motion for an extension of time, deeming it moot. The parties were ordered to file a joint status report to propose a schedule for future proceedings.
This case highlights the complexities of military law and the challenges faced by service members when navigating disciplinary proceedings. While the court dismissed several of Tee’s claims, some aspects of his case will continue to be litigated, including those related to the procedures of PRB-2.