Walters v. Secretary of Defense, 82-2089
| Decision Date | 15 March 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-2089,82-2089 |
| Citation | 737 F.2d 1038 |
| Parties | Robert A. WALTERS v. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al., Appellants. Richard A. Gusimano. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
John D. Bates, Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., with whom Stanley S. Harris, U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C. (at the time the brief was filed), Royce C. Lamberth, R. Craig Lawrence and John Oliver Birch, Asst. U.S. Attys., Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellants.
Barton F. Stichman, Washington, D.C., with whom David F. Addlestone, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellees.
Joseph M. Hassett, John C. Keeney, Jr., Sue A. Kaplan, and Katherine A. Schoff, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for amicus curiae urging affirmance.
Before ROBINSON, Chief Judge, WRIGHT, TAMM, WILKEY, WALD, MIKVA, EDWARDS, GINSBURG, BORK, SCALIA and STARR, Circuit Judges, and MacKINNON, Senior Circuit Judge.
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.
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. Sec. 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 () (emphasis added). Congress has granted discharged service members 15 years from discharge to petition a review board for an upgrade, 10 U.S.C. Sec. 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. Sec. 1553(a), with the relevant administrative...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nihiser v. White
... ... Ward S. NIHISER, Plaintiff, ... Thomas E. WHITE, Secretary of the Army, Defendant ... No. Civ.A. 01-1817(RCL) ... United States ... National Defense Auth. Act for FY 1991 ("1991 Auth. Act"), Pub.L. No. 101-510, § 401, 104 ... ABCMR, 996 F.2d 362, 365 (D.C.Cir.1993); Walters v. Sec'y of Defense, 725 F.2d 107, 111 (D.C.Cir.1983), reh. denied, 737 ... ...
-
Koller By and Through Koller v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.
... ... of a crucial witness" by obtaining a statement from his (Allis') secretary declaring that representatives of the defendant were pressuring her to ... The next day defense counsel had called the court to attempt to set up a conference before ... ...
-
Gordon v. Wilson
... ... John O. MARSH, Jr., Secretary of the Army, Defendant-Appellee ... Nos. 81-1767, 81-5827, 81-5878 and ... merits of the Army's failure to exhaust administrative remedies defense and dismissed the complaint. While we can make no judgment as to the ... ...
-
Blassingame v. Secretary of Navy
...denied, 782 F.2d 1351 (1986); Smith v. Marsh, 787 F.2d 510 (10th Cir.1986); see also Walters v. Secretary of Defense, 737 F.2d 1038 (D.C.Cir.1984) (denying rehearing in banc) (Wald, Mikva, JJ., concurring). The Federal Circuit favors the view urged by the government. See Hurick v. Lehman, 7......