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

D.C. Circuit

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

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided March 15, 1984·No. 82-2089·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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

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.

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).

Pincite

737 F.2d 1038 (Robert A. Walters v. Secretary of Defense, Richard A. Gusimano) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related