“The critical interests of the United States could be compromised if military contractors were left ‘holding the bag’ for claims made by military and other personnel that could not be made against the military itself,” Titus said in a decision released yesterday in Greenbelt, Maryland."

The remedy for the allegedly injured service members is through military and legislative processes, not the courts, Titus said.

Andrew Farley, KBR’s executive vice president and general counsel, said in an e-mailed statement that the company is pleased by the ruling, especially its emphasis on non-judicial means of redress.

“We look to the courts to continue this positive trend in other pending cases,” Farley said.

Susan Burke, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said in a phone interview that Titus’s ruling will be appealed. She declined to comment further.

A phone call to Halliburton requesting comment on the ruling wasn’t immediately returned.

Contract Terms

The plaintiffs claim that the Houston-based companies ignored the terms of contracts with the U.S. that required safe and environmentally sound waste disposal for troops.

Titus’s decision marks a reversal of an earlier ruling in the same set of cases.

In September 2010, Titus said that KBR, the largest U.S. military contractor, and Halliburton must face the suits and that “courts must be prepared to adjudicate cases that ultimately expose defense contractors to appropriate liability.”

In yesterday’s decision, Titus cited a September 2011 ruling by the U.S. appeals court in Richmond in an unrelated case where the court said a soldier’s claim against KBR for injuries from electric shock was barred by the “political question doctrine.” The doctrine prevents courts from reviewing certain actions taken by other branches of government.

‘Binding Precedent’

That case “creates new, binding precedent with respect to whether this court has subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims,” Titus wrote.

KBR faces other suits alleging harm from its military contracting activities and has said it will appeal an $85 million jury award to 12 U.S. soldiers who claim the company negligently exposed them to toxic chromium dust at a worksite in Iraq in 2003.

The case is In Re KBR Inc. (KBR), Burn Pit Litigation, 09-2083, U.S. District Court for Maryland (Greenbelt).

Garst pleaded guilty in November to one count of bulk cash smuggling, but the Army veteran has recanted his earlier admission that the money came from a kickback scheme with an Afghan company. The 51-year-old Kansas man contends the money was winnings from extensive gambling at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan where he worked as a manager for the company between 2009 and 2011. He claims that his judgment was clouded by post-traumatic stress disorder from earlier deployments in Iraq and Kosovo.

Both the government and defense have declined to comment on the case before sentencing, but each side's sentencing memorandum to the court outlines their arguments.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jared Maag argued that the defendant used the war in Afghanistan to enrich himself with disregard to the ways the crimes damage the integrity of government contracting, disrespect those serving in Afghanistan and undercut the mission of reconstruction.

Maag contends Garst used his position as a private contractor to steer government subcontracts to an Afghan company that gave him a cut of the proceeds - an illegal agreement that promised to net him at least $610,000, of which he actually obtained more than $200,000.

The government cited his criminal record, including at least eight violations of military law that led to his discharge "under other than honorable conditions." Those violations included fraternization, sexual harassment, falsifying a promotion package with intent to deceive, theft of government property, dereliction of duty and misuse of a government credit card.

The defense's document recounts Garst's troubled upbringing, which led him to leave home at 15 and work two jobs while attending high school. He dropped out of college in 1982 to join the Army and quickly realized he had "found his calling."

A decorated veteran, full-time employee of the Army National Guard and eventually a civilian contractor, Garst served his country most of his life, attorney Christopher Joseph said. While serving in Iraq as a national guardsman, he was in charge of mortuary affairs, verifying remains and processing them to return home.

Joseph wrote that Garst's PTSD symptoms allow him only two or three hours of sleep a night. He has nightmares so vivid he can see the ice poured on the bodies to preserve them, the attorney said. Garst hears voices screaming at him and sees faces of dead soldiers when agitated, Joseph said, and stepping into sunlight reminds Garst of explosives.

The defense argues that Garst suffered from psychological troubles at the time of the crime, saying his capacity for good judgment was impaired. The felony charge drove him to realize the seriousness of his conduct, his attorney wrote.

"If any good has come from Mr. Garst's bad act, it is that the gravity of this situation has awakened him to the need to address his mental health issues - thoroughly and fully," Joseph told the court.