Green Air Force Lawsuit

Case 1:24-cv-01590-RDM Document 1 Filed 05/30/24 Page 1 of 14
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
JENNIFER-RUTH GREEN, )
1636 W 100th Ave, )
Crown Point, IN 46307 )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. __________
)
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, )
1690 Air Force Pentagon )
Washington, D.C. 20330-1670 )
)
Defendant. )
)
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Jennifer-Ruth Green files this Complaint against Defendant Department of the
Air Force (Air Force) under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, and alleges:
INTRODUCTION
1. Since arriving at the Air Force Academy in the fall of 2000, Jennifer-Ruth Green
has dedicated her life to service of her country in the Air Force and Air National Guard.
Consistent with her demonstrated love of her country, in 2022, Green ran for Congress in
Indiana’s First District (Indiana’s CD1). In doing so, Green, a Republican, took on the
unenviable task of running against an incumbent Democrat in a seat that has not elected a GOP
member in almost 100 years. Consistent with her record of service, she rose to the challenge and
made what was thought a long-shot bid into a “tossup” by the fall of 2022.
2. Green’s Air Force service record is subject to limited public disclosure. The
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act balance the right of the public to obtain
information from military service records, and the right of the servicemember or veteran to
protect their privacy. Hence, limited amounts of information can be released to members of the
general public from an individual’s military service record and disclosing records pertaining to
an individual servicemember is prohibited in the absence of the servicemember’s consent except
as authorized by the Privacy Act and FOIA.
3. Despite these protections, only weeks before election day, the Air Force released non-
public portions of Green’s military service record to Democratic opposition researchers without
her consent. These records—which included information revealing a sexual assault suffered by
Green during her service in Iraq—were used by Green’s political opponents to attack her decades
of faithful service and to smear her reputation. This unlawful release of Green’s Air Force
records to opposition political operatives derailed Green’s campaign and forced her to receive
counseling and to pay for identity protection. The unlawful release of Green’s service records
also bears a striking similarity to the unlawful release of at least ten other Republican
servicemember candidates’ Air Force records to Democratic operatives during the 2022
campaign. This lawsuit seeks redress for this misconduct under the Privacy Act.
PARTIES
4. Jennifer-Ruth Green is a citizen of the United States who resides at the address
stated in the caption. Green attended the Air Force Academy and, after graduating in 2005,
served on active duty in the Air Force for 7 years, including a deployment to Iraq as part of
Operation Iraqi Freedom. Green transitioned to service in the Indiana Air National Guard and
presently serves in the Nevada Air National Guard.
5. Defendant Department of the Air Force is an agency of the United States subject
to the Privacy Act. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a(a)(1), (b); 552(f)(1).
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action arises
under laws of the United States. The Court also has jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1),
which provides “the district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction … under the
provisions of this subsection [of the Privacy Act].”
2
7. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as a substantial part of the events
giving rise to the claim occurred in Washington, D.C., and the Air Force’s principal headquarters
is located in the District of Columbia. Venue is also proper in the District of Columbia under 5
U.S.C. § 552a(g)(5).
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
8. The Privacy Act “contains a comprehensive and detailed set of requirements for
the management of confidential records held by Executive Branch agencies.” FAA v. Cooper,
566 U.S. 284, 287 (2012). It “safeguards the public from unwarranted collection, maintenance,
use and dissemination of personal information contained in agency records.” In re OPM Data
Sec. Breach Litig., 928 F.3d 42, 61–62 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (quoting Henke v. Dep’t of Com., 83
F.3d 1453, 1456 (D.C. Cir. 1996)).
9. To that end, the Privacy Act prohibits agencies from disclosing “any record which
is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another
agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior consent of, the individual to
whom the record pertains,” unless certain exceptions apply. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b).
10. “Record” under the Privacy Act means “any item, collection, or grouping of
information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, his
education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and that
contains his name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to
the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph.” § 552a(a)(4).
11. “Maintain” under the Privacy Act includes to “maintain, collect, use, or
disseminate.” § 552a(a)(3).
12. “System of record” under the Privacy Act means “a group of any records under
the control of any agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or
by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual.”
§ 552a(a)(5).
3
13. Federal law requires the Air Force to maintain a personnel record on all members,
and the Privacy Act “general[ly] prohibit[s the] agency’s unconsented disclosure of personnel
files.” See Hill v. Dep’t of Def., 981 F. Supp. 2d 1, 11 (D.D.C. 2013). Specifically, the Privacy
Act contains a private right of action against agencies that improperly disclose records protected
by the Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1)(D), and waives sovereign immunity when “(i) the agency
‘intentional[ly] or willful[ly]’ violate[s] the Act’s requirements for protecting the confidentiality
of personal records and information; and (ii) [the plaintiffs] sustain[s] ‘actual damages’ (iii) ‘as a
result of’ that violation.” In re OPM, 928 F.3d at 62 (third, fourth, and fifth alterations added)
(quoting § 552a(g)(4)).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Green’s Service in the U.S. Air Force and Reserve Component

14. Green served her country for years in the Air Force. From 2001 to 2005, Green
attended the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, graduating in 2005 with a B.S. in
Foreign Area Studies (Asia), and a minor in Japanese.
15. Upon graduation, Green spent 7 years in active duty with the Air Force, first as a
pilot trainee and later in the Air Force Office of Special Investigations. While in Office of
Special Investigations, Green served as a member of the post-9/11 foreign policy teams in the
Iraq reconstruction where she developed, managed, and conducted training in an active war zone.
Green also worked as a criminal and counterintelligence investigator where she analyzed
worldwide terrorism threat information and provided defensive, force protection, and
antiterrorism training to Air Force and Department of Defense personnel.
16. In 2010, Green was appointed operations officer, and later deputy chief, of a
nuclear command and control operation center. Green led a team of 26 people and supervised
activities at the central agency for command and control.
17. After 7 years of full-time military service, Green transitioned to the Air Reserve
Component through the Indiana Air National Guard. While serving the Indiana Air National
4
Guard from 2015 to 2023, Green served as director and inspector general of complaints
resolution and commander and chief information officer.
18. Green presently serves in the Nevada Air National Guard as the executive officer to
the assistant adjutant general (air) of Nevada.
Green’s 2022 Congressional Campaign

19. In July 2021, Green announced her candidacy for Indiana’s CD1. Indiana’s CD1
is in northwest Indiana and has been a Democratic stronghold for nearly a century, with the last
Republican elected in 1925.
20. On May 3, 2022, Green won the Republican primary for Indiana’s CD1, over six
other candidates, with 47.1% of the votes.
21. Despite Democrats’ historical dominance in Indiana’s CD1, as election day
approached, political pundits and national election watchdogs, including The Cook Political
Report, increasingly revised their forecast from “leaning Democrat” to a “tossup.” See, e.g.,
Rachel Fradette, Once Reliably Blue Indiana 1st District Is a ‘Toss-Up” This Election,
Indianapolis Star (Oct. 26, 2022, 5:02 a.m.), https://bit.ly/3So9gQq. Indeed, the Democratic
Party apparatus spent mightily during the 2022 general election to hold Indiana’s CD1 seat. See,
e.g., 2024 Frontline Members, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (last visited
Nov. 6, 2023), https://bit.ly/471cFca (“In 2022, [Representative Frank Mrvan] won by a narrow
margin after spending over $2.5 million to keep this seat blue.”); Theodoric Meyer, A Battle for
Working-Class Voters in a Key Indiana House Race, The Washington Post (Oct. 18, 2022, 5:00
a.m.), https://wapo.st/3FSlYPG (reporting that the “House Majority PAC, the super PAC charged
with defending the Democrats’ House majority, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign
Committee together have booked about $5 million” in attack advertisements).
22. Green narrowly lost the 2022 general election for Indiana’s CD1 to her
Democratic opponent with 47.2% of the vote. Green’s performance in the 2022 general election
was the best a Republican candidate performed in Indiana’s CD1 since 1946.
5
Democratic Opposition Researchers Request Green’s Service Records

23. Upon information and belief, throughout 2022, the Due Diligence Group, LLC (a
Minnesota based company) and Abraham Payton were paid opposition researchers for the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic Senatorial
Campaign Committee (DSCC). In the course of their work for these Democratic committees,
Payton and the Due Diligence Group submitted dozens of requests for the military service
records of Republican candidates in competitive senatorial and congressional races.
24. Payton and the Due Diligence Group’s service-record requests were uniformly
initiated via the submission of National Archives and Records Administration’s Standard Form
180 (SF-180) for each Republican servicemember candidate. The SF-180 is a one-page form
document for the “REQUEST[S] PERTAINING TO MILITARY RECORDS.” (Exemplar SF-
180 (Rev. 4/2021) Submitted by Payton and Due Diligence Group for the Military Records of
Congressman Zachary M. Nunn (IA-R), dated Jan. 28, 2022, is attached as Exhibit 1.)
25. Upon information and belief, the SF-180s submitted by Payton and the Due
Diligence Group were filled out in a nearly identical manner for each Republican servicemember
candidate, including Green. Each SF-180 listed the Republican servicemember candidate’s
name, social security number, date of birth, and place of birth. (Ex. 1 at 1.)
26. Upon information and belief, for the “information and/or documents requested,”
each SF-180 sought “Publicly releasable/redacted copy of OMPF [official military personnel
file] per Freedom of Information Act statutes.” (Id.) And each SF-180 listed the “purpose” as
“Benefits” and “Employment” with an explanation that the form sought “[s]ervices, awards,
6
disciplinary history/records relevant to applicant’s qualifications for potential positions’ duties,
pay, and benefits.” A screenshot of Exhibit 1’s Section II is below.
27. Upon information and belief, each SF-180 named Abraham Payton as the person
requesting the record. Payton listed the same Minnesota address as the location to which to
transmit the documents and listed phone numbers and an email address associated with the Due
Diligence Group. Each SF-180 also stated “N/A” as the relationship to the Republican
servicemember candidate and left blank the boxes indicating the form was being submitted by
the servicemember or a deceased servicemember’s next-of-kin. Payton signed each form “under
the penalty of perjury.” A screenshot of Exhibit 1’s Section III is below.
7
The U.S. Air Force’s Unlawful Disclosure of Green’s Service Records
28. Upon information and belief, although Payton and the Due Diligence Group
submitted dozens of SF-180s for Republican servicemember candidates service records to all
branches of the armed services, only the Air Force disclosed records that were not properly
subject to release under FOIA.
29. Specific to Green, the Air Force released her entire military service record (in
unredacted form) to Payton and the Due Diligence Project, including highly sensitive
confidential records related to a sexual assault she suffered while in the military, during the
middle of a closely watched congressional campaign in a highly competitive district.
30. Upon information and belief, the U.S. Air Force unlawfully released the
confidential service records of at least 11 Republican servicemember candidates, and virtually all
the disclosed records were sent to Payton and the Due Diligence Project.
31. On January 18, 2023, through acting compliance chief William J. Alexander, Jr.,
the Air Force sent Green a letter confessing to the unlawful disclosure. Alexander reported that
the Air Force had “review[ed] our processes on the release” and “found that your [Green’s]
information was released by the Air Force Personal Center to a third-party (‘Due Diligence’) …
without your consent via a SF-180 request.” Alexander added, “Ten interviews of personnel
involved in this release who were in roles related to military records, Freedom of Information
8
Act (FOIA), or Privacy Act (PA) to determine if any criminal intent existed [sic]. It was
concluded that a PII [personal identifying information] breach did occur due to the
unauthorized release of your military personnel records to a third party without proper
redaction.” (Emphasis added.)
32. Nonetheless, without support, the U.S. Air Force summarily reported that “no
evidence was presented to indicate any criminal intent on the part of the Air Force.” (Emphasis
added.) (Letter from William J. Alexander, Jr., Acting Compliance Chief, U.S. Air Force, to
Jennifer-Ruth Green, dated Jan. 18, 2023, attached as Exhibit 2.)

33. The Air Force has not shared the record of the “[t]en interviews” it conducted of
“personnel involved in this release” with Green.
34. On information and belief, the Air force has sent similar letters to the other ten
Republican servicemember candidates summarily concluding no criminal intent existed related
to the unlawful release of their records.
The Opposition’s Malicious Use of Green’s Service Records for Political Hit Pieces
35. Upon information and belief, Payton and Due Diligence Group’s purpose in
requesting Green’s service record was to support a larger scheme to collect and disseminate
opposition research to Green’s political opponents, including the DCCC.
36. Indeed, the Air Force’s unlawful disclosure of Green’s service record first came
to light in October 2022, when Indiana and national news media contacted Green’s campaign
claiming to have information revealing a disciplinary action taken against her during her service
with the Air Force in Iraq.
37. One such article was published by Adam Wren of Politico on October 7, 2022.
See Adam Wren, Jennifer-Ruth Green’s Surprising Flight Plan to Win in a Democratic District,
Politico (Oct. 7, 2022, 8:00 a.m.), https://politi.co/3MyRy9a. Ostensibly styled as a profile piece,
the Politico article revealed confidential records that documented an instance in which Green
was sexually assaulted by an Iraqi serviceman while she was on assignment in Iraq. The article
9
revealed that Green “was advised not to report the assault” because “if American leadership
complained to Iraqi leadership, they would continue to see women as liabilities and limit their
ability to serve.” The article continued, “The poor evaluation, which was performed by someone
who was not in Iraq with Green, affected her ability to rise in the ranks and in 2012 she was
removed from active duty as part of a larger force reduction, according to her records.”
38. The Air Force’s disclosure, and Payton and Due Diligence Group’s subsequent
leak, of Green’s confidential records forced Green to speak publicly about her sexual assault to
the media during a politically charged, partisan congressional election. Green was even accused
of leaking the records herself for political gain during the final weeks of the campaign, which,
given that Green had diligently kept the matter of her sexual assault private for a decade, was a
monstrous and obviously false accusation.
39. Accordingly, when the Politico article was released, Green was required to turn
her attention away from her campaign and dedicate time speaking publicly about one of the
worst moments in her life—all because the Air Force unlawfully disclosed her confidential
service record. A statement by Green at the time read, “I’m a survivor of sexual trauma in the
military, and I am being forced to discuss it publicly for the first time because Congressman
Mrvan or his supporters obtained—either illegally or by egregious error—military records
describing my sexual assault as well as performance reviews, and peddled those records to the
media with the intent smear me and my military career … . After reporting my assault against the
advice of officials in my command, my career was intentionally derailed. I appealed the findings
with the military and the issue is settled. I have unquestionably progressed as a military member,
promoting to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, and successfully completed a command tour.”
(Statement of Jennifer-Ruth Green, dated Oct. 9, 2022, attached as Exhibit 3.)
40. To make matters worse, the Air Force initially denied disclosing Green’s
confidential service records. In response to an inquiry by Senator Tom Cotton, the Air Force
reported to national news media, “We cannot confirm any documents on this individual were
released by the Department of the Air Force under the Freedom of Information Act.” While the
10
Air Force conceded “any release of information that, if disclosed, would invade another
individual’s personal privacy would be reviewed under Exemption FOIA 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6)
with redactions made to ensure compliance with the law,” assuring “[e]ach document would be
reviewed on a case by case basis,” it refused to say if this happened in Green’s case. See Tyler
Olson & Kelly Laco, Cotton Demands Info from Air Force After Jennifer-Ruth Green Sexual
Assault Leak, Fox News (Oct. 13, 2022, 6:00 a.m.), https://fxn.ws/40rxefz.
41. The U.S. Air Force’s refusal to publicly own up to its wrongful disclosure during
the final weeks of a contested congressional election only served to inflame speculation around
the reports of Green’s sexual assault while serving in the military.
42. Indeed, when the Air Force finally did acknowledge its wrongful disclosure in
late October 2022, it did so passively and vaguely, blaming a “junior individual.” See Cheyanne
M. Daniels & Emily Brooks, Air Force Improperly Released Records on GOP Candidate’s
Sexual Assault, The Hill (Oct. 26, 2022, 9:30 a.m.), https://bit.ly/3SxJv01. As reported by
national media outlets, Ann Stefanek, chief of media operations at the Air Force, stated, “Based
on the preliminary findings of an investigation, it appears information was released to a third
party by a junior individual who didn’t follow proper procedures and obtain required consent.”
Stefanek added that the “matter remains under investigation,” nonetheless no public reports from
the Air Force were released regarding the disclosure.
Green Suffers Actual Damages
43. As noted above, the Air Force’s unlawful disclosure of Green’s private service
records forced Green to spend valuable time and money in the late stage of her campaign for
Congress addressing her sexual assault rather than the issues of her race.
44. Beyond this, the disclosure effectively re-victimized Green, who had deliberately
kept her sexual assault private, and forced her to seek counseling.
45. The disclosure also forced Green to purchase identity-theft protection given the
certainty that with so many details regarding her military service and personally identifying
information, any motivated individual could attempt to steal her identity.
11
46. Finally, the disclosure also kept Green from securing gainful employment for months
after the end of her congressional campaign because of her anxiety that a potential employer
would learn of her sexual assault and she’d be forced to discuss it during the hiring process.
CLAIM I
(Violation of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b), (g)(1)(D))
47. Green restates the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
48. Green’s military service record is a “record” under the Privacy Act’s definition
because it is an “item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is
maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, his [or her] education, financial
transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and that contains his [or her]
name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the
individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph.” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(4).
49. At the time of its disclosure, Green’s military service record was contained in a
“system of records,” as that phrase is defined in § 552a(a)(5) of the Privacy Act, that is
maintained by the Air Force.
50. The Air Force, through its staff and agents, in violation of § 552a(b) of the
Privacy Act disclosed an unredacted copy of Green’s military service to Payton and Due
Diligence Group, political opposition researchers, in 2022 during the most critical timeframe of
Green’s congressional race for Indiana’s CD1. The unredacted copy included confidential and
sensitive material, including documentation of an Iraqi serviceman’s sexual assault of Green.
51. The Air Force has publicly admitted, the “unauthorized release of [Green’s]
military personnel records to a third party without proper redaction” was a “PII [personal
identifying information] breach” and no Privacy Act exception, see § 552a(b)(1)–(12), applies.
52. The Air Force’s unlawful disclosure and failure to comply with the Privacy Act
had a tremendous adverse effect on Green both personally and professionally. On a personal
level, the disclosure rehabilitated a highly private matter in a public forum in which political
operatives were motivated to spin the facts and widely disseminate the content to media outlets
12
and pundits. Not only that, but the disclosure (by no mistake) occurred at highpoint in Green’s
professional career—during the middle of competitive congressional race in a district that by
most accounts was a tossup. Rather than discussing policy issues and campaigning in the final
weeks of the 2022 general election, Green had to turn her attention to, and publicly discuss,
being sexually assaulted while in the military, and how the military minimized it and tried to
subvert an otherwise decorated military career. A simple Google search of relevant search terms
makes plain the level of distraction Green endured in October and November 2022.
53. Just as problematic was the Air Force’s initial indifference in responding to the
unlawful disclosure of Green’s confidential military service record. Instead of admitting to the
disclosure and correcting the record to minimize untoward influence in an ongoing congressional
election, the Air Force initially denied disclosing Green’s records: “We cannot confirm any
documents on this individual were released by the Department of the Air Force under the
Freedom of Information Act.” This had the effect of validating Green’s political opponents’
malicious use the sexual assault to smear Green.
54. Even when the Air Force finally did acknowledge its wrongful disclosure in late
October 2022, it sheepishly blamed a “junior individual’s” failure “to follow proper procedures.”
At no time before the 2022 election did the Air Force publicly admit to the wrongdoing and
correct the personal and professional harm it enabled by disclosing protected personal
information to political opposition researchers. Indeed, to this day, no public report has been
issued, despite the Air Force admitting to the “breach” in a private letter to Green.
55. The Air Force acted “intentionally and willfully” in wrongfully disclosing
Green’s confidential military service record and failing to comply with the Privacy Act. As
alleged, the Air Force’s actions, through its staff and agents, at best was “grossly negligent” and
“in flagrant disregard of [Green’s] rights under the Act”; at worst they were “so patently
egregious and unlawful that anyone undertaking the conduct should have known it unlawful” and
“committed without grounds for believing them to be lawful.” Maydak v. United States, 630 F.3d
166, 180 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (cleaned up).
13
56. Because of the unlawful disclosure, Green suffered actual damages in the form of the
cost of identity-theft protection and lost wages.
57. Based on the foregoing, the U.S. Air Force is liable to Green for violation of
§ 552a(b) and (g)(1)(D) of the Privacy Act.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, Plaintiff Green asks the Court to enter judgment in her favor and against
Defendant U.S. Air Force and to order the following relief:
a. Award her actual damages caused by the U.S. Air Force’s disclosure of her
military service record in violation of the Privacy Act; and
b. Award her costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
Respectfully submitted this 30th day of May, 2024.
FIRST & FOURTEENTH PLLC
By: s/ Christopher O. Murray

Christopher O. Murray
Julian R. Ellis, Jr.
2 N. Cascade Avenue, Suite 1430
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Telephone: 719.428.4937
Email: chris@first-fourteenth.com
julian@first-fourteenth.com
Michael Francisco (D.C. Bar No. 90005564)

800 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: 202.754.0522
Email: michael@first-fourteenth.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Jennifer-Ruth Green
14
Case 1:24-cv-01590-RDM Document 1-1 Filed 05/30/24 Page 1 of 2
CIVIL COVER SHEET
JS-44 (Rev. 11/2020 DC)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
Jennifer-Ruth Green Department of the Air Force
888888
(b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF _____________________ COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED DEFENDANT _____________________
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED
(c) ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER) ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)
Christopher O. Murray
Julian R. Ellis, Jr.
Michael Francisco
2 N. Cascade Ave., Suite 1430
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Phone: (719) 428-4937
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX FOR
(PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX ONLY) PLAINTIFF AND ONE BOX FOR DEFENDANT) FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY!
o 1 U.S. Government o 3 Federal Question

PTF DFT
o1 o1
PTF
o4 o4
DFT
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of this State Incorporated or Principal Place
of Business in This State
o 2 U.S. Government o 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State o2 o2 Incorporated and Principal Place o5 o5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of
of Business in Another State
Parties in item III) Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country
o3 o3 Foreign Nation o6 o6
IV. CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT
(Place an X in one category, A-N, that best represents your Cause of Action and one in a corresponding Nature of Suit)
o A. Antitrust o B. Personal Injury/ o C. Administrative Agency o D. Temporary Restraining
Malpractice Review Order/Preliminary
410 Antitrust Injunction
310 Airplane 151 Medicare Act
315 Airplane Product Liability Any nature of suit from any category
320 Assault, Libel & Slander Social Security
may be selected for this category of
861 HIA (1395ff)
330 Federal Employers Liability case assignment.
862 Black Lung (923)
340 Marine
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) *(If Antitrust, then A governs)*
345 Marine Product Liability
864 SSID Title XVI
350 Motor Vehicle
865 RSI (405(g))
355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability
Other Statutes
360 Other Personal Injury
891 Agricultural Acts
362 Medical Malpractice
893 Environmental Matters
365 Product Liability
890 Other Statutory Actions (If
367 Health Care/Pharmaceutical
Administrative Agency is
Personal Injury Product Liability
Involved)
368 Asbestos Product Liability
o E. General Civil (Other) OR o F. Pro Se General Civil

Real Property Bankruptcy Federal Tax Suits
210 Land Condemnation 422 Appeal 2 USC 158 870 Taxes (US plaintiff or 465 Other Immigration Actions
220 Foreclosure 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157 defendant) 470 Racketeer Influenced
230 Rent, Lease & Ejectment 871 IRS-Third Party 26 USC & Corrupt Organization
240 Torts to Land Prisoner Petitions 7609
480 Consumer Credit
245 Tort Product Liability 535 Death Penalty
Forfeiture/Penalty 485 Telephone Consumer
290 All Other Real Property 540 Mandamus & Other
625 Drug Related Seizure of Protection Act (TCP )
550 Civil Rights
Property 21 USC 881 490 Cable/Satellite TV
Personal Property 555 Prison Conditions
690 Other 850 Securities/Commodities/
370 Other Fraud 560 Civil Detainee – Conditions
Exchange
371 Truth in Lending of Confinement
Other Statutes 896 Arbitration
380 Other Personal Property
375 False Claims Act 899 Administrative Procedure
Damage Property Rights
376 Qui Tam (31 USC Act/Review or Appeal of
385 Property Damage 820 Copyrights
3729(a)) Agency Decision
Product Liability 830 Patent
400 State Reapportionment 950 Constitutionality of State
835 Patent – Abbreviated New
430 Banks & Banking Statutes
Drug Application
450 Commerce/ICC Rates/etc 890 Other Statutory Actions
840 Trademark
460 Deportation (if not administrative agency
880 Defend Trade Secrets Act of
462 Naturalization review or Privacy Act)
2016 (DTSA)
Application
o G. Habeas Corpus/ o H. Employment o I. FOIA/Privacy Act o J. Student Loan
2255 Discrimination
530 Habeas Corpus – General 442 Civil Rights – Employment 895 Freedom of Information Act 152 Recovery of Defaulted
510 Motion/Vacate Sentence (criteria: race, gender/sex, 890 Other Statutory Actions Student Loan
463 Habeas Corpus – Alien national origin, (if Privacy Act) (excluding veterans)
Detainee discrimination, disability, age,
religion, retaliation)
*(If pro se, select this deck)* *(If pro se, select this deck)*
o K. Labor/ERISA o L. Other Civil Rights o M. Contract o N. Three-Judge

(non-employment) (non-employment) Court
110 Insurance
710 Fair Labor Standards Act 441 Voting (if not Voting Rights 120 Marine 441 Civil Rights – Voting
720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations Act) 130 Miller Act (if Voting Rights Act)
740 Labor Railway Act 443 Housing/Accommodations 140 Negotiable Instrument
751 Family and Medical 440 Other Civil Rights 150 Recovery of Overpayment
Leave Act 445 Americans w/Disabilities – & Enforcement of
790 Other Labor Litigation Employment Judgment
791 Empl. Ret. Inc. Security Act 446 Americans w/Disabilities – 153 Recovery of Overpayment
Other of Veteran’s Benefits
448 Education 160 Stockholder’s Suits
190 Other Contracts
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise
V. ORIGIN
o 1 Original o 2 Removed o 3 Remanded o 4 Reinstated o 5 Transferred o 6 Multi-district o 7 Appeal to o 8 Multi-district
Proceeding from State from Appellate or Reopened from another Litigation District Judge Litigation –
Court Court district (specify) from Mag. Direct File
Judge
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE.)
5 U.S.C. § 552a: Unlawful disclosure of military service records to political opposition researchers.
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS DEMAND $ Actual Damages Check YES only if demanded in complaint
COMPLAINT ACTION UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 JURY DEMAND: YES NO ✘
VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (See instruction)
IF ANY
YES NO ✘ If yes, please complete related case form
May 30, 2024

DATE: _________________________ s/ Christopher O. Murray
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD _________________________________________________________
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET JS-44

Authority for Civil Cover Sheet
The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and services of pleadings or other papers as required
by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the
Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed.
Listed below are tips for completing the civil cover sheet. These tips coincide with the Roman Numerals on the cover sheet.
I. COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT (b) County of residence: Use 11001 to indicate plaintiff if resident
of Washington, DC, 88888 if plaintiff is resident of United States but not Washington, DC, and 99999 if plaintiff is outside the United States.
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES: This section is completed only if diversity of citizenship was selected as the Basis of Jurisdiction
under Section II.
IV. CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT: The assignment of a judge to your case will depend on the category you select that best
represents the primary cause of action found in your complaint. You may select only one category. You must also select one corresponding
nature of suit found under the category of the case.
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION: Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write a brief statement of the primary cause.
VIII. RELATED CASE(S), IF ANY: If you indicated that there is a related case, you must complete a related case form, which may be obtained from
the Clerk’s Office.
Because of the need for accurate and complete information, you should ensure the accuracy of the information provided prior to signing the form.
District of Columbia
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
Print Save As... Reset


PROOF OF SERVICE


PROOF OF SERVICE

Exhibit 1
(Exemplar SF-180 (Rev. 4/2021)
Submitted by Payton and Due Diligence
Group for the Military Records of
Congressman Zachary M. Nunn (IA-R))
Exhibit 2
(Letter from William J. Alexander, Jr.,
Acting Compliance Chief,
U.S. Air Force, to Jennifer-Ruth Green,
dated Jan. 18, 2023)
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

WASHINGTON, DC
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

18 Jan 2023
Ms. Jennifer-Ruth Green

1636 W 100th Ave
Crown Point, IN 46308
JGreen2682@gmail.com
FROM: William J. Alexander, Jr

SAF/CNZA
1800 Air Force Pentagon
Washington, D.C., 20330-1665
SUBJECT: Complaint - Unauthorized Release of Personnel File
Ma’am,
Thank you for reaching out to us concerning your request for an investigation into your
complaint about the release of any documents from your active-duty military personnel file to the
media and or other entities.
We take issues involving the improper release of personal identifiable information (PII) and
information from Privacy Act records very seriously, as required by federal law and Department
of the Air Force policy. As you noted in your letter to me dated 3 Oct 22, The Privacy Act of
1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, prohibits the disclosure of Privacy Act record information
about an individual without that individual's written consent, or as otherwise authorized by an
exception to the Privacy Act.
In this case, we reviewed our processes on the release of Department of the Air Force records to
the public to determine whether the release of your OPR was made by DAF personnel through
the Freedom of Information Act process or other official process, such as through Public Affairs.
We found that your information was released by the Air Force Personal Center to a third-party
(“Due Diligence”), a private company specializing in public record research without your
consent via a SF-180 request.
Pursuant to this authority, Major General Troy Dunn, Air Force Personnel Center Commander,
appointed GS-15 Kelli Smiley on 19 October 2022 to conduct the Investigation into a potential
PII incident in DP1O. The findings indicated that Due Diligence Group LLC requested
“Publicly releasable/redacted copy of your OMPF per Freedom of Information Act statutes”.
Ten interviews of personnel involved in this release who were in roles related to military records,
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), or Privacy Act (PA) to determine if any criminal intent
existed.
It was concluded that a PII breach did occur due to the unauthorized release of your military
personnel records to a third party without proper redaction. Based on all interviews, no evidence
was presented to indicate any criminal intent on the part of the Air Force.
The current process for processing requests is very labor intensive. A review of the technology
used, training provided, and quality assurance and audits of the process was conducted, and steps
are being taken to ensure that records are properly redacted and released.
1/18/2023
X William J Alexander, Jr.

William J Alexander, Jr.
Acting Compliance Division Chief
Signed by: ALEXANDER.WILLIAM.JR.1366326967
Exhibit 3
(Statement of Jennifer-Ruth Green,
dated Oct. 9, 2022)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 9, 2022
Contact: Kevin Hansberger

kevin@jennifer-ruthgreen.com
Statement on Mrvan and Allies Illegally Obtaining Green’s Military

Records, Politico Outing Sexual Assault
Crown Point, IN – Today Jennifer-Ruth Green, candidate for

Congress in Indiana’s 1st Congressional District, released the
following statement responding to Congressman Frank Mrvan and
his cronies illegally obtaining Green’s military records, attempting to
smear her military career and working with Politico to out her as a
victim of sexual assault while serving in Iraq:
“I’m a survivor of sexual trauma in the military. I am being forced to share

this information outside of my own timeline and for the rst time publicly
because my Congressman, Frank Mrvan, and his cronies illegally obtained
my military records describing my sexual assault. His team shed the
details of my assault to different news outlets, asking them to share
misinformation to portray me as a failed military of cer who lacks
integrity. This is false.
I believe after sharing my assault against the advice of some in my

command, my career was intentionally derailed. The paperwork
Congressman Mrvan illegally obtained contains information that re ects

me in a negative light. I have since appealed the incident with the
military, and the entire issue is settled. Clearly, I have progressed as a
military member, promoting to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, and
successfully completing a command tour.
I have written to the U.S. Attorney, the Air Force Inspector General, and
the Department of Defense asking them to launch criminal probes into
the release of my con dential personnel le.
I am saddened to have to share publicly one of the most private events of

my life, and I’m even more saddened that Congressman Mrvan, who I
applauded for authoring the Military Sexual Trauma bill, would engage in
or tolerate this despicable behavior from his campaign and his allies. It’s
unacceptable for every vet, it’s unacceptable for every woman, and it’s
unacceptable for anyone who has ever been a victim of sexual assault.
However, God, my family, my Pastor and his wife, and the mental health
providers at the Adam Benjamin VA have been instrumental in helping
me thrive after this great dif culty.
As a servant and as a leader, I take my words and my responsibilities
seriously. I will continue to serve people with integrity, and I am
undeterred by Congressman Mrvan’s attacks. As I have always, I will
move forward and succeed despite obstacles such as this thrown in my
path.”
–––––
Jennifer-Ruth Green is a conservative Republican, Air Force

Academy graduate, combat veteran and serves as a Lieutenant
Colonel in the Indiana Air National Guard. Learn more at
www.Jennifer-RuthGreen.com
###
Create your #JenniferRuthGreen Social Media Pro le Avatar!
   
Paid for by the Committee to Elect Jennifer-Ruth Green.
Jennifer-Ruth Green is a member of the Air Reserve Component of the U.S. Air Force. Use of her
military rank, job titles, and photographs in uniform does not imply endorsement by the Air
National Guard, Indiana National Guard, the 122d Fighter Wing, the Department of the Air Force,
or the Department of Defense.

Green Air Force Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Green Air Force Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:24-cv-01590-RDM Document 1 Filed 05/30/24 Page 1 of 14

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

an individual servicemember is prohibited in the absence of the servicemember’s consent except

as authorized by the Privacy Act and FOIA.

presently serves in the Nevada Air National Guard.

to the Privacy Act. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a(a)(1), (b); 552(f)(1).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

provisions of this subsection [of the Privacy Act].”

7. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as a substantial part of the events

F.3d 1453, 1456 (D.C. Cir. 1996)).

is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another

the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph.” § 552a(a)(4).

Green’s Service in the U.S. Air Force and Reserve Component

Foreign Area Studies (Asia), and a minor in Japanese.

antiterrorism training to Air Force and Department of Defense personnel.

activities at the central agency for command and control.

resolution and commander and chief information officer.

the assistant adjutant general (air) of Nevada.

Green’s 2022 Congressional Campaign

Republican elected in 1925.

other candidates, with 47.1% of the votes.

21. Despite Democrats’ historical dominance in Indiana’s CD1, as election day

Committee together have booked about $5 million” in attack advertisements).

Democratic Opposition Researchers Request Green’s Service Records

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic Senatorial

records of Republican candidates in competitive senatorial and congressional races.

document for the “REQUEST[S] PERTAINING TO MILITARY RECORDS.” (Exemplar SF-

disciplinary history/records relevant to applicant’s qualifications for potential positions’ duties,

pay, and benefits.” A screenshot of Exhibit 1’s Section II is below.

the penalty of perjury.” A screenshot of Exhibit 1’s Section III is below.

The U.S. Air Force’s Unlawful Disclosure of Green’s Service Records

subject to release under FOIA.

middle of a closely watched congressional campaign in a highly competitive district.

redaction.” (Emphasis added.)

Jennifer-Ruth Green, dated Jan. 18, 2023, attached as Exhibit 2.)

“personnel involved in this release” with Green.

Republican servicemember candidates summarily concluding no criminal intent existed related

to the unlawful release of their records.

opposition research to Green’s political opponents, including the DCCC.

with the Air Force in Iraq.

monstrous and obviously false accusation.

Mrvan or his supporters obtained—either illegally or by egregious error—military records

(Statement of Jennifer-Ruth Green, dated Oct. 9, 2022, attached as Exhibit 3.)

on the preliminary findings of an investigation, it appears information was released to a third

the Air Force were released regarding the disclosure.

Green Suffers Actual Damages

information, any motivated individual could attempt to steal her identity.

because it is an “item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is

individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph.” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(4).

maintained by the Air Force.

sensitive material, including documentation of an Iraqi serviceman’s sexual assault of Green.

professional career—during the middle of competitive congressional race in a district that by

malicious use the sexual assault to smear Green.

166, 180 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (cleaned up).

cost of identity-theft protection and lost wages.

§ 552a(b) and (g)(1)(D) of the Privacy Act.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Defendant U.S. Air Force and to order the following relief:

military service record in violation of the Privacy Act; and

b. Award her costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

Respectfully submitted this 30th day of May, 2024.

FIRST & FOURTEENTH PLLC

By: s/ Christopher O. Murray

Michael Francisco (D.C. Bar No. 90005564)