The Court has not yet certified Calixto, et al. v. United States Department of Defense, et al., Civil Action No. 18-1551 as a class action. Therefore, MAVNIs, other than those specifically named in the Calixto complaint, are not plaintiffs or parties to the Calixto action and are not yet represented as class members by Fried Frank in that case or with respect to the discharge issues raised in that case.
However, there may be information from the Calixto case that MAVNIs, particularly those in the DTP (Selected Reservists) or DEP (Regular Army) who purportedly have been discharged or are subject to separation proceedings by the Army, may find useful, including the following:
- The Court has ordered the Army to file bi-weekly status reports concerning changes the Army is making to its policy for MAVNI DEP and DTP administrative separation procedures. The most recent bi-weekly Army report can be located through this LINK.
- According to the Army, even if a soldier has received a discharge order from the U.S. Army Recruiting Command (USAREC), the soldier has not been discharged from the U.S. Army, unless the soldier also received a discharge order issued by the U.S. Army Reserve Command (USARC).
- According to the Army, “on July 20, 2018, the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower & Reserve Affairs suspended processing of all involuntary separation actions pertaining to members of the DEP and DTP who were recruited through the MAVNI Pilot Program.” The Army’s July 20, 2018 memorandum concerning that suspension can be located through this LINK. Thus, even soldiers who received discharge orders issued by the USARC have not been discharged if the effective date on the soldier’s order was on or after July 20, 2018.
- The Army reported to the Court that as of August 17, 2018, USAREC had reinstated, in the DTP, 32 members of the MAVNI program, and USARC had revoked discharge orders for 6 members of the MAVNI program (i.e. 2 of the named plaintiffs plus 4 other MAVNIs). The Army has reported that, in total, separation proceedings for 149 MAVNIs have been suspended. The Army’s report can be found through the link in the first bullet above. Please note that the Army did not provide a list, to the Court or to plaintiffs’ counsel at Fried Frank, identifying the 149 MAVNI soldiers by name or otherwise.
- If you are a MAVNI DEP or DTP soldier whose discharge orders were not from USARC or were suspended per the July 20, 2018 Memorandum and you face problems with TriCare, connectivity to Army systems, your CAC card, ability to drill (for DTP members), Defense Financial Accounting Services invoices, or similar issues resulting from the purported/suspended discharge, please contact your recruiter and/or your chain of command (first line supervisor, platoon sergeant, first sergeant, sergeant major, and so on). If your recruiter and chain of command cannot help you, you may want to request that they contact the Army representative and counsel for the Army in the Calixto action, who are identified in the Army’s bi-weekly status reports, including the latest one which can be found through the link in the first bullet above.
- According to the Army, if you are a MAVNI DEP or DTP soldier who has received a discharge from the USARC (and not just a USAREC discharge order) AND your USARC discharge had an effective date before July 20, 2018, your discharge is effective and has not been suspended by the July 20, 2018 Memorandum. The Court has ordered the Army to identify (under seal) all MAVNIs who received discharge orders effective within the year prior to July 20, 2018 and whose discharge orders are not expected to be revoked. The Court’s Order can be found at this LINK. We will post additional information (but we will not post the names of any MAVNIs) following the Army’s update on September 4, 2018 – please return to this page for that update.
Other key documents from the Calixto action can be found through these links:
- Calixto Docket 19 – August 3, 2018 Amended Complaint
- Calixto Docket 21 – August 3, 2018 Motion for Class Certification
Please check back periodically as Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP (“Fried Frank”), counsel for the Kirwa class and the Nio class, will be adding and updating documents and information found on this Site.
This website and the materials provided herein are made available by Fried Frank to provide publicly available information regarding the Kirwa and Nio class actions. Nothing on this website creates or establishes any attorney client relationships between Fried Frank and any persons or entities. Your use of the Site is conditioned on your understanding and acknowledgement that (1) the material and information on the Site is not offered as and does not provide legal advice on any matter and should not be used as a substitute for seeking legal advice, and (2) Fried Frank is not and will not be responsible for any errors or omissions on this website or any action or failure to act in reliance upon information on the Site.