CAPTAIN MILBERT MINDES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
DR. ROBERT SEAMAN, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his non-selection for promotion was due to erroneous information in his Officer Effectiveness Report or that he was denied equal protection or due process.
Captain Mindes sought correction of his military records after being twice passed over for promotion, leading to mandatory release from active duty. T…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Correction Of Military Records cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Captain Mindes sought correction of his military records, 10 U.S.C. §§ 1552, 1553, after he was twice passed over for promotion to Air Force major and was thus subject to mandatory release from active duty. On remand from this Court, Mindes v. Seaman, 5 Cir., 1971, 453 F. 2d 197, the district court denied relief. We affirm.
Appellant failed to show that his not being selected for promotion was due solely to information contained about him in an Officer Effectiveness Report or that this report was factually erroneous. Absent proof of such error, ratings and promotion decisions are peculiarly within the discretion of military authority. Cf. Mindes v. Seaman, supra, at 201.
Appellant’s allegation of denial of equal protection also fails since there was no showing of discrimination in the promotion regulations at issue or in their application.
Finally, there is no merit to Mindes’ claim that he was denied due process of law because the Correction Board did not grant him a hearing and did not issue written findings of fact. Mindes specifically waived appearance at the hearing, and written findings are not required when appearance has been waived.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Major Adolph H. Knehans, Jr. v. Alexander, 566 F.2d 312 (D.C. Cir. 1977)
-
Johnson v. Reed, 609 F.2d 784 (5th Cir. 1980)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Capt. Milbert Mindes v. Seaman, 453 F.2d 197 (5th Cir. 1971)