# Sanders v. United States

> United States Court of Claims · February 21, 1979 · 594 F.2d 804

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8596431

## Case

- **Full name:** LARRY C. SANDERS v. United States
- **Court:** United States Court of Claims
- **Decided:** February 21, 1979
- **Citations:** 594 F.2d 804; 219 Ct. Cl. 285; 1979 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 66
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Friedman
- **Judges:** Bennett, Davis, Friedman, Kashiwa, Kunzig, Nichols, Smith
- **Cited by:** 431 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Superseded by statute, as recognized in Stephen W. Richey v. United States.
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 3
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8596431

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that even if a court disagrees with a correction board’s conclusion “about whether or not a specific situation was unjust, [it] will not substitute [its] judgment for the board’s when reasonable minds could reach differing conclusions.”
- concluding that OERs challenged by the officer did not fairly portray his record and stating that "upon his corrected record,” the officer should be given restoration to active duty and reconsideration for promotion by a selection board
- stating that § 204 "confers on an officer the right to the pay of the rank he was appointed to up until he is properly separated from the service" and serves as the basis for Tucker Act jurisdiction where a discharge is wrongful
- stating that § 204 “confers on an officer the right to pay of the rank he was appointed to up until he is properly separated from the service” and serves as the basis for Tucker Act jurisdiction where a discharge is wrongful
- holding that challenge to OER on objectivity grounds must overcome the strong, but rebuttable, presumption that administrators of the military discharge their duties “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith”

## Opinion text

FRIEDMAN, Chief Judge,
concurring.
I join in Parts I, II and III of the court’s opinion. I join in Part IV on my understanding that the court is holding only that on the particular facts of this case, the Correction Board committed legal error by not removing plaintiffs three passovers for promotion to temporary major from his file. The significant facts in this case for me are that the two permanent major selection boards that passed over petitioner rated him at the very cutoff point for selection, that the invalidated OERs constituted a significant number of the total OERs the Correction Boards had before them (four out of 21, or almost 20 percent), and that when the three subsequent selection boards considered but rejected plaintiff for promotion there was no explanation in his file of the absence of the eliminated OERs. As I understand its opinion, the court is not deciding that in other circumstances the refusal or the failure of a Correction Board to void passovers where the officer’s file contains one or more invalidated OERs would constitute legal error that the court should correct.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8596431. Public record. Not legal advice.