on November 24, 2015 (the “SecNav Report”), found that plaintiff failed, in his request and in his letter of deficiency, to adequately explain why the requested documents, assuming they existed, were relevant. With respect to Major Brezler’s request for documents (“e-mails since July 1, 2012, regarding Brezler, Sarwar Jan, Ainuddin Khudair-aham or the August 10, 2012 attack by Generals Flynn and Mills, or any commander or principal staff officer within the 3rd [sic] Battalion, 8th Marines from July 1 to August 10, 2012”), documents not provided were not relevant, did not exist, or were not within the control of [the Marine Forces Reserve]. (R. at 2626.) 2. Analysis The Navy, like any other agency, must comply with its own binding rules. Smith v. Resor, 406 F.2d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1969) (<HOLDING>). Although the government contends that this ■
holding that section 1252a2bii barred jurisdiction of decisions specified by statute as discretionary but did not bar decisions specified by regulation as discretionary holding that attorneys are not debt relief agencies holding that new york city agencies cannot be sued holding that mandatory military procedures and regulations cannot be ignored by the agencies themselves even where discretionary decisions are involved recognizing that administrative agencies are not bound by rules of evidence