Skip to main content

Access to military records

In Re Andrea Rowlette, Petitioner

Updated Nov 12, 2026

In brief

Where it stands
Dismissed

Petition denied.

What it’s about
Rowlette asked the Supreme Court to order USARC DCS G-1 to release records she requested under the Freedom of Information Act, repay her fees, and review her administrative separation and Article 15-6 matter, including her claim that related congressional inquiries lacked fair process.
Who it affects
The Court did not order USARC DCS G-1 to release the records or repay fees, and it did not decide Rowlette’s challenges to her separation.

Summary: written with AI from the case record.

Illustration for In Re Andrea Rowlette, Petitioner
Conceptual illustration · AI-generated

What it's about

The Court refused to hear her petition (denied review), without deciding her claims.

Rowlette also claimed that related congressional inquiries did not follow fair procedures.

Question presented

1. Whether this Honorable Court may render an order of mandamus compelling USARC DCS G-l, the final “ denial/release" authority, to expedite and release the electronic [un]redacted file(s) to the appellant and reimbursement of fees paid. 1 FOIA Request(s) include: FA-24-0108 [substantive verbatim [un]redacted trial proceedings voice recording (via mp3 secure email)], FA-25-01 17, FA-25-0130, FA-25-0126, FA-25-001 6. 2. Whether this Honorable court will determine after review of an investigation [with appointment of Counsel for the appellant (and/or a Special Master) and denying the opposing parties of any requests for extensions delaying any swift relief (Supreme Court Rule 21.4)] of the Adverse Administrative Separation, Article 15-6 for the appellant and matters fully surrounding to include the lack of due process of the associated congressional inquiries, 2 Res Ipsa Loquitur — will/may deem award for immediate injunctive and compensatory relief warranting: full restoration/reversal of the Article 15 and bar of all lesser included offenses from retrial as affirmed by "new" substantial and compelling evidence on direct review. 3?

Documents

1

Docket activity

6
  • New analysis added

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

  • AI analysis generated: Case Briefing

    Nov 12, 2026 · Generated

  • AI analysis generated: Decision Record

    Nov 12, 2026 · Generated

  • Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

  • Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

Show 1 more
  • Brief added: Petition

    Feb 28, 2026 · Court records

Sources

Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.

Checked Nov 12, 2026Methodology

Court records and filings

Reporting and analysis