Blevins v. Plummer, CV
| Decision Date | 14 February 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. CV,CV |
| Parties | Lieutenant Colonel Thomas E. BLEVINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The Honorable James W. PLUMMER, Acting Secretary of the Air Force; Colonel Paul L. Green, Commander, Norton Air Force Base, California, Defendants-Appellees. 77-2163. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Richard P. Fox, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
Steven D. Petersen, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before GOODWIN, HUG and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Thomas Blevins, an Air Force lieutenant colonel, was disappointed when he was not selected for promotion to colonel. After exhausting his administrative remedies, he sued the Secretary of the Air Force. He appeals an adverse judgment on the district court pleadings. 1
Blevins believes he was not promoted because of the inaccuracy or incompleteness of his personnel file. His administrative requests that the file be amended, either by the insertion of a "letter of mitigation" 2 or by changing an Officer Effectiveness Report in the file in accord with the letter, were all denied. In this action Blevins seeks judicial review of the administrative denials as well as actual promotion to colonel.
None of the various theories advanced by Blevins in support of civilian judicial review finds support in the cases. His constitutional arguments fall because Blevins had no liberty or property interest in being promoted. See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972); Pauls v. Secretary of Air Force, 457 F.2d 294, 297 (1st Cir. 1972); Knehans v. Callaway, 403 F.Supp. 290, 296 (D.D.C.1975), Aff'd sub nom. Knehans v. Alexander, 184 U.S.App.D.C. 420, 566 F.2d 312 (D.C.Cir.1977), Cert. denied, 435 U.S. 995, 98 S.Ct. 1646, 56 L.Ed.2d 83 (1978).
His other arguments similarly fall. The plaintiff officer points to no breach of regulation, or statutory or other published procedures. He alleges no improper command influence or other glaring military error such as were found in the few cases in which civilian judicial review resulted in relief. See, e. g., Skinner v. United States, 594 F.2d 824 (Ct.Cl.1979); Yee v. United States, 512 F.2d 1383 (Ct.Cl.1975).
Blevins also raises a claim under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a). However, the Air Force regulations implementing the Privacy Act limit corrections to "factual matters," 32 C.F.R. § 806b.17. 3 Blevins requested correction not of an error of fact, but of an error of judgment. Therefore, the Privacy Act simply does not apply.
Affirmed.
1 Because documents in addition to the pleadings were presented on the defendants' motion to dismiss, it may be more appropriate to view the District Court's action as entry of summary judgment. See Sanford v. United States, 399 F.2d 693, 694 (9th Cir. 1968); Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b).
2 In this letter, a rating...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fagot v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp.
...the Act for correction of allegedly inaccurate record keeping apply only to errors of fact and not of judgment. See: Blevins v. Plummer, 613 F.2d 767, 768 (9th Cir.1980). It must also be remembered that the Act's requirement of accurate record keeping is measured by a standard of reasonable......
-
Hughes v. Whitmer
...9 or internal transfer does not implicate a due process liberty interest as envisioned by Paul v. Davis. See, e.g., Blevins v. Plummer, 613 F.2d 767, 768 (9th Cir.1980) (promotion); Moore v. Otero, 557 F.2d 435, 438 (5th Cir.1977) (transfer); Sullivan v. Brown, 544 F.2d 279, 283 (6th Cir.19......
-
McNeely v. U.S. Dep't of Labor
...1373, 1377-78 (9th Cir. 1986). 63. See Rogers v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 607 F.Supp. 697, 699 (N.D. Cal. 1985) (citing Blevins v. Plummer, 613 F.2d 767, 768 (9th Cir. 1980)). 64. See Docket no. 23 at 10-11. 65. See Rogers, 607 F.Supp. at 699 (Privacy Act amendment "may not be employed as a ske......
-
U.S. v. Healy Tibbitts Const. Co., 82-4568
...219 Ct.Cl. 322 (1979) (evidence sufficient), but see Gruendyke v. United States, 639 F.2d 745, 226 Ct.Cl. 193 (1981); Blevins v. Plummer, 613 F.2d 767 (9th Cir.1980) (no influence shown). There is nothing in this record, however, to suggest that the Hearing Officer was in fact influenced by......