Case law

ATK Thiokol, Inc. v. United States

68 Fed. Cl. 612 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 30, 2005

CAS Board guidance includes illustrations following the test of each regulation, CAS Board interpretations, and the CAS preambles to explain regulations in “non-technical” language. See Boeing Co. v. … (citing Tallman v. Brown, 105 F.3d 613, 616 (Fed.Cir.1997); Union Pac. Corp. v. United States, 5 F.3d 523, 526 (Fed.Cir.1993)).

Strickland v. United States

61 Fed. Cl. 443 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 30, 2004

Thus, we have been instructed to decline to review promotion actions of selection boards. See, e.g., Dysart v. … (emphasis added); Stoneburner v. Secretary of the Army, 152 F.3d 485, 488 (5th Cir.1998) (“[Jludieial review of the Board’s decision is limited[.]”) (emphasis added); cf. Acquisto v.

Quinton v. States States

64 Fed. Cl. 118 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 8, 2005

Case law in this Circuit has also recognized the court’s ability to review Board decisions. See Godwin v. United States, 338 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed.Cir.2003); Wronke v. Marsh, 787 F.2d 1569, 1576 (Fed.Cir.1986); Engels v. … Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153, 1157 (Fed.Cir.1983). Thus, because the Court of Federal Claims does not sit as a “super correction board,” Skinner v.

Turner v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 6, 2025

Turner’s claims; the Air Force Personnel Center (including its work- force development section), the board’s medical advisor, and the board’s psychological advisor all provided opinions to the board. … Keene Corp v.

Hale v. United States

107 Fed. Cl. 339 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 2, 2012

This case returns to the court after a remand to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (“Army Board” or “ABCMR”). See Hale v. United States, No. 10-822C, 2011 WL 2268961 (Fed.Cl. June 9, 2011). Ms. … Hale must show by “cogent and clearly convincing evidence” that the decision of the Army Board was arbitrary and capricious. Wronke v. Marsh, 787 F.2d 1569, 1576 (Fed.Cir.1986) (quoting Dorl v.

Van Allen v. United States

70 Fed. Cl. 57 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 27, 2006

Cooley v. United States, 324 F.3d 1297, 1305 (Fed.Cir.2003); Biddle v. United States, 186 Ct.Cl. 87, 100-01 (1968); Bookman v. United States, 197 Ct.Cl. 108, 112 , 453 F.2d 1263, 1265 (1972); Friedman v. … Barrett v. Principi, 363 F.3d 1316, 1321 (Fed.Cir.2004); Goewey v. United States, 222 Ct.Cl. 104, 112 , 612 F.2d 539, 544 (1979); Ware v. United States, 57 Fed.Cl. 782, 788 (2003).

Tender Years Learning Corporation v. United States

134 Fed. Cl. 336 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 27, 2017

Servs. v. United States, 116 Fed. … Wurst v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 683, 685 (2013) (quoting Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795, 797 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).

Martinez v. United States

77 Fed. Cl. 318 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 29, 2007

See Todd v. … Review of a military correction board’s decision is “limited to the administrative record before the deciding official or officials.” Wyatt v. United States, 23 Cl.Ct. 314, 319 (1991) (citing Long v.

Strickland v. United States

69 Fed. Cl. 684 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 8, 2006

See Roth v. … See Rose v.

SUFI Network Services, Inc. v. United States

105 Fed. Cl. 184 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 18, 2012

Blanchard v. … The Government cites Singer Co. v.

First Federal Savings Bank v. United States

55 Fed. Cl. 263 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 12, 2003

Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. … Bank of Hegewisch v. United States, No. 93-162 (Fed.Cl. Dec. 12, 2002) (order concerning disclosure of board minutes).

Bonewell v. United States

95 Fed. Cl. 752 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 4, 2010

It therefore affirmed the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Similarly, in Davis v. … (citing Brown v. United States, 396 F.2d 989 (Ct.Cl.1968))). In this case, the court is confronted with a situation where the correction board did not consider evidence submitted by the applicant.

White Buffalo Construction, Inc. v. United States

38 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,511 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 13, 1992

Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 152 , 104 S.Ct. 1723, 1726 , 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984) (quoting Mohasco Corp. v. … Plaintiff also has sought reconsideration of the court’s revised order transferring to the Agricultural Board of Contract Appeals (AGBCA) the count of the complaint based on the contracting officer’s final decision of December

Weston Solutions, Inc. v. United States

95 Fed. Cl. 311 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 25, 2010

Contracts Co. v. … See Kerr Contractors, Inc. v.

Johnson v. United States

125 Fed. Cl. 575 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 10, 2016

Plaintiff s burden is to show by "'cogent and clearly convincing evidence"'that the decision of the board fails this standard. Wronke v. Marsh,787 F .2d 1569, i 576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (quoting Dorl v. … See, e.g., Boraiko v. United States,146 Ct.

Loeh v. United States

57 Fed. Cl. 743 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 16, 2003

See Loeh v. … Id.; see also Fluellen v.

Mendez v. United States

108 Fed. Cl. 350 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 20, 2012

Metz v. United States, 466 F.3d 991, 998 (Fed.Cir.2006). Plaintiffs burden is to show by “cogent and clearly convincing evidence” that the decision of the correction board fails this standard. Wronke v. … Plaintiff also must overcome the presumption of regularity that attaches to the actions of a correction board. See Richey v.

Six v. United States

79 Fed. Cl. 581 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 18, 2007

TMs case is before the court after remand to the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR or Board) following tMs court’s review of a prior decision of the BCNR in Six v. United States (Six), 71 Fed.Cl. 671 (2006). … United States v.

Otay Mesa Property L.P. v. United States

86 Fed. Cl. 774 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 5, 2009

V, cl. 4. … Ingrum v.

Mendez v. United States

103 Fed. Cl. 370 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 31, 2012

Later in Adkins v. … Plaintiff also must overcome the presumption of regularity that attaches to the actions of a correction board. See Richey v.