Robert A. Walters v. Secretary of Defense, Richard A. Gusimano

737 F.2d 1038, 237 U.S. App. D.C. 333, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 24502
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedMarch 15, 1984
Docket82-2089
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 737 F.2d 1038 (Robert A. Walters v. Secretary of Defense, Richard A. Gusimano) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Robert A. Walters v. Secretary of Defense, Richard A. Gusimano, 737 F.2d 1038, 237 U.S. App. D.C. 333, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 24502 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The suggestion for rehearing en banc of Appellees Walters, et. al., filed February 13, 1984, has been circulated to the full Court and no member has requested the taking of a vote thereon. On consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED by the Court en banc that the suggestion is denied.

WALD and MIKYA, Circuit Judges, concurring in the denial of the motion to rehear en banc:

We want to emphasize the limited reach of the holding in this case. As we read Walters, the panel opinion, 725 F.2d 107 (D.C.Cir.1983), merely holds that, in independent civil actions brought to correct a serviceman’s record, the six-year statute of limitations found in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) applies. Walters explicitly does not speak to the altogether distinct question of what time period governs when review is sought of administrative discharge decisions. See at 115 (“Nor do we address the reviewability of such an administrative decision in federal court.”) (emphasis added). Congress has granted discharged service members 15 years from discharge to petition a review board for an upgrade, 10 U.S.C. § 1553(a), and this court has expressly held that Congress did not intend to preclude judicial review of decisions reached by those review boards. Van Bourg v. Nitze, 388 F.2d 557, 564 n. 14 (D.C.Cir.1967). As a result, we do not believe Walters in any way limits jurisdiction to review a correction board’s treatment of a petition for a discharge upgrade that is timely filed, under 10 U.S.C. § 1553(a), with the relevant administrative body.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Blassingame v. Secretary of Navy
811 F.2d 65 (Second Circuit, 1987)
Blassingame v. Secretary Of The Navy
811 F.2d 65 (Second Circuit, 1987)
Blassingame v. Secretary of the Navy
626 F. Supp. 632 (E.D. New York, 1985)
Bittner v. Secretary of Defense
625 F. Supp. 1022 (District of Columbia, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
737 F.2d 1038, 237 U.S. App. D.C. 333, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 24502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-a-walters-v-secretary-of-defense-richard-a-gusimano-cadc-1984.