George L. Sanford v. United States of Am., United States Army, 399 F.2d 693 (9th Cir. 1968). · Go Syfert
Search
George L. Sanford v. United States of Am., United States Army, 399 F.2d 693 (9th Cir. 1968). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
38 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 21 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Charles P. Burns v. John O. Marsh, Jr., Individually and as Secretary of the Army (ca9, 1987-06-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1969 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1969 1997 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Charles P. Burns v. John O. Marsh, Jr., Individually and as Secretary of the Army
9th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
See Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296, 303 , 103 S.Ct. 2362, 2367 , 76 L.Ed.2d 586 (1983); Sanford v. United States, 399 F.2d 693, 694 (9th Cir.1968).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wronke v. Marsh
C.D. Ill. · 1985 · confidence medium
See Diliberti v. Brown, 583 F.2d 950, 952 (7th Cir.1978); Ballenger v. Marsh, 708 F.2d 349, 350 (8th Cir.1983); Neal v. Secretary of Navy, 639 F.2d 1029, 1036-37 (3rd Cir.1981); Matlovich v. Secretary of Air Force, 591 F.2d 852, 859 (D.C.Cir.1978); Hodges v. Callaway, 499 F.2d 417, 423 (5th Cir.1974); Sanford v. United States, 399 F.2d 693, 694 (9th Cir.1968).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Temple v. Orr
M.D. Tenn. · 1984 · confidence medium
Baker v. Schlesinger, 523 F.2d 1031, 1035 (6th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 972 , 96 S.Ct. 1473 , 47 L.Ed.2d 741 , reh ’g denied, 425 U.S. 966 , 96 S.Ct. 1752 , 48 L.Ed.2d 211 (1976); Sanford v. United States, 399 F.2d 693, 694 (9th Cir.1968).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Schmidt v. United States
Ct. Cl. · 1983 · confidence medium
Cir.1978); Sanford v. United States, 399 F.2d 693, 694 (9th Cir.1968); Van Bourg v. Nitze, 388 F.2d 557 (D.C.Cir.1967); Ashe v. McNamara, 355 F.2d 277, 281 (1st Cir.1965). ‘Although this court cannot consider plaintiffs' wrongful discharge claims, plaintiffs are not precluded from seeking action to correct their records in federal district court.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Karl Ballenger v. John O. Marsh, Jr., Secretary of the Army
8th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
Neal v. Secretary of the Navy, 639 F.2d 1029, 1036-37 (3d Cir.1981); Matlovich v. Secretary of the Air Force, 591 F.2d 852, 859 (D.C.Cir.1978); Hodges v. Callaway, 499 F.2d 417, 423 (5th Cir.1974); Sanford v. United States, 399 F.2d 693, 694 (9th Cir.1968).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Watkins v. United States Army
W.D. Wash. · 1982 · confidence medium
Sanford v. United States, 399 F.2d 693, 694 (9th Cir. 1968) (per curiam); Hodges v. Callaway, supra, 499 F.2d at 423 ; Peppers v. United States Army, 479 F.2d 79, 83-84 (4th Cir. 1973); Doe v. Chafee, 355 F.Supp. 112, 114 (N.D.Cal.1973); see also 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(C), (D).
cited Cited as authority (rule) John E. Ampleman v. Honorable James R. Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense, and John L. McLucas Secretary of the Air Force
8th Cir. · 1976 · confidence medium
“The court’s function * * * was confined to a review of the evidence submitted to the Board for Corrections.” Sanford v. United States, 399 F.2d 693, 694 (9th Cir. 1968). 9 .
examined Cited as authority (rule) Thomas v. Morton (3×)
D. Ariz. · 1976 · confidence medium
Henrikson v. Udall, 350 F.2d 949, 950 (C.A. 9, 1965); Mosely v. Hickel, 442 F.2d 1030 (C.A. 9, 1971); Sanford v. United States, 399 F.2d 693, 694 (C.A. 9, 1968).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jesse L. Horn v. Honorable James R. Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense
8th Cir. · 1975 · confidence medium
Sanford v. United States, 399 F.2d 693, 694 (9th Cir. 1968); Hoorwitz v. Resor, 329 F.Supp. 1050, 1051 (D.Conn.1970), aff’d per curiam, 445 F.2d 1407 (2nd Cir. 1971); Esgate v. United States, 186 Ct.Cl. 207 (1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 913 , 89 S.Ct. 1759 , 23 L.Ed.2d 226 (1969). 15 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Multiple Use, Inc. v. Rogers C. B. Morton, Secretary of the Interior
9th Cir. · 1974 · confidence medium
Sanford v. United States, 399 F.2d 693, 694 (9th Cir. 1968).
cited Cited as authority (rule) James E. Peppers v. The United States Army and Those Who Hold the Offices of Secretary of the Army and the Adjutant General of the United States Army
4th Cir. · 1973 · confidence medium
“The [district] court’s function . . . was confined to a review of the evidence submitted to the Board for Corrections.” Sanford v. United States, 399 F.2d 693, 694 (9 Cir. 1968).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Doe v. Chafee
N.D. Cal. · 1973 · confidence medium
Thereafter, and at further hearings on the matter, petitioner pressed for an honorable discharge, stating that the action of the Board for Correction of Naval Records “although a measurable approach to fairness in the matter herein, does not represent a satisfactory resolution of the controversy . . . . ” Respondent contends that the action of the Navy should be sustained. 4 It is not the proper function of this court to substitute its judgment for that of the administrative officer to whom Congress has assigned the functions here under review. 10 U.S.C. §§ 1552 , 1553; Sanford v. United…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Multiple Use, Inc. v. Morton
D. Ariz. · 1972 · confidence medium
The standard for judicial review was clearly stated in Sanford v. United States, 399 F.2d 693, 694 (9th Cir. 1968), where the Court held: “No judicial relief from action of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records is available in the absence of a showing that the action was arbitrary or capricious or was unsupported by substantial evidence.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Amato v. Chafee
D.D.C. · 1972 · confidence medium
Van Bourg v. Nitze, 128 U.S.App.D.C. 301, 307, 310 , 388 F.2d 557, 563, 566 (1967); Sanford v. United States, 399 F.2d 693, 694 (9th Cir. 1968).
cited Cited "see" Watkins v. United States Army
W.D. Wash. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sanford v. United States, 399 F.2d 693 , 694 (9th Cir.1968) (per curiam); Hodges v. Callaway, 499 F.2d 417 , 423 (5th Cir.1974); 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A), (D).
cited Cited "see" Blevins v. Honorable Plummer
9th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sanford v. United States, 399 F.2d 693, 694 (9th Cir. 1968); Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b). .
discussed Cited "see" Blevins v. Plummer
9th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
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 officer recommended that the ratings he had given Blevins in a particular Officer Effectiveness Report be upgraded.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
George L. SANFORD, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, United States Army, Et Al., Appellees
21819.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Sep 23, 1968.
399 F.2d 693
George L. Sanford (argued), Yakima, Wash., for appellant., Carl Eardley (argued), Acting Asst. Atty., J. F. Bishop, Alan S. Rosenthal, Attys., Washington, D. C., Smithmoore P. Myers, U. S. Atty., Yakima, Wash., for appellee.
Hamley, Merrill, Per Curiam, Real.
Cited by 32 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks review of an order of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, denying appellant’s application under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(a) for correction of his army medical record in order that it might reflect disabilities allegedly suffered by him in connection with his military service. His action was dismissed by the District Court for failure to state a claim. Since matters outside the pleadings were presented at the hearing on motion to dismiss, we treat the court’s action as an entry of summary judgment. Rule 12(b), F.R.Civ.P.; S & S Logging Co. v. Barker, 366 F.2d 617 (9th Cir. 1966).

No judicial relief from action of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records is available in the absence of a showing that the action was arbitrary or capricious or was unsupported by substantial evidence. Stephens v. United States, 358 F.2d 951, 954, 174 Ct.Cl. 365 (1966). The lower court reviewed all documentary evidence submitted by appellant and concluded that appellant had not met his burden of establishing that the Board had acted arbitrarily and that there was substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision. We agree.

Appellant assigns as error refusal of the court to allow him to produce further oral evidence in support of his original documentary evidence, and also in support of other alleged disabilities which had not been claimed before the Board. He also objects to the court’s refusal to allow him to amend his complaint in order to set out additional allegations to support such offered evidence. The court’s function, however, was confined to a review of the evidence submitted to the Board for Corrections. Appellant’s supplemental evidence was never offered to the Board and appellant made no attempt to explain his failure to do so. It appears that appellant was attempting to try his case anew on bases not theretofore alleged.

Judgment affirmed.