green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
54.1 score
“we . . . presume that the correction board performed its function according to the regulations and considered all of the records.”
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Hatmaker v. United States
we . . . presume that the correction board performed its function according to the regulations and considered all of the records.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Sparks v. United States
(4×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
The Court is ‘“limited to determining whether a decision of the Correction Board is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to applicable statutes and regulations.”’” (quoting Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Henrikson v. United States
Like the Claims Court, we are limited to determin- ing whether the underlying Board decision was “arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or con- trary to applicable statutes and regulations.” Id. (quoting Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Engle v. United States
Under this standard, the court determines whether the board’s decision is “arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to applicable statutes and regulations.” Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jimenez v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Moreover, the Court presumes that a board’s actions are valid and performed “according to the regulations and considered all of [plaintiff’s] records.” Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1045 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Moyer v. United States
Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wheeler v. United States
Therefore, the court must determine whether a board’s decision “is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to applicable statutes and regulations.” 6 Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stahl v. United States
(2×)
Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Manker v. United States
The Court presumes that a board’s actions are performed “according to the regulations and consider[] all of [plaintiff’s] records.” Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1045 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hutchinson v. United States
Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jeanpierre, IV v. United States
Thus, challenges to an administrative review board’s decision are limited to whether that board’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to applicable statutes and regulations. 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2); Melendez Camilio v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Scott v. United States
It applies a deferential standard of review that is “limited to determining whether a decision of the Correction Board is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to applicable statutes and regulations.” Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thomas v. United States
The Court is “limited to determining whether a decision of the Correction Board is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to applicable statutes and regulations.” Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Martin v. United States
The Court is ‘“limited to determining whether a decision of the Correction Board is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to applicable statutes and regulations.”’” (quoting Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hassay v. United States
It applies a deferential standard of review that is “limited to determining whether a decision of the Correction Board is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to applicable statutes and regulations.” Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Glomski v. United States
The court must determine whether the board’s decision is “arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to applicable statutes and regulations.” Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Buholtz v. United States
Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. United States
The Court is “limited to determining whether a decision . . . is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to applicable statutes and regulations.” Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Boyce v. United States
Cl. at 607 (“As noted, the scope of review of the decision of a military correction board is a narrow and deferential one. 17 The Court is ‘“limited to determining whether a decision of the Correction Board is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to applicable statutes and regulations.”’” (quoting Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Manago v. United States
The Court is “limited to determining whether a decision of the Correction Board is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to applicable statutes and regulations.” Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Henrikson v. United States
The Court is “‘limited to determining whether a decision of the Correction Board is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to applicable statutes and regulations.’” Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Henrikson v. United States
The Court is “‘limited to determining whether a decision of the Correction Board is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to applicable statutes and regulations.’” Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wild v. United States
(2×)
The court presumes that the board’s actions are valid, and “the burden is upon the complainant to show otherwise.” Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1045 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Driscoll v. United States
Under such standards, a court must determine whether a board’s decision is “arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to applicable statutes and regulations.” Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson v. United States
Under such standards, a court must determine whether a board’s decision is “arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to applicable statutes and regulations.” Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lowry v. United States
Standard of Review In military pay cases, the Court reviews the administrative record to determine whether a board’s decision is “arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to applicable statutes and regulations.” Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
King v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The court presumes that the AFBCMR’s actions are valid, and “the burden is upon the complainant to show otherwise.” Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1045 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Soldevila-Cuesta v. United States
In reviewing challenges to military corrections board decisions under RCFC 52.1, the Court is “‘limited to determining whether a decision of the [c]orrection [b]oard is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to applicable statutes and regulations.’” Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Campbell v. United States
Board is arbitrary, capricious, unsuppmied by substantial evidence, or contrary to applicable statutes and 4 regulations." Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown v. United States
In reviewing challenges to military corrections board decisions under RCFC 52.1, the Court is ‘“limited to determining whether a decision of the [correction [b]oard is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to applicable statutes and regulations.’ ” Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bias v. United States
“As long as the Board’s action comported with the procedural standards mandated by statute or regulation, considered the relevant evidence, and reached a reasonable conclusion, the court will not disturb the Board’s decision.” Verbeck v. United States, 118 Fed.Cl. 420, 424 (2014) (citing Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1045 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Porter v. United States
Thus, this Court is “‘limited to determining whether a decision of the Cor *564 rection Board is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to applicable statutes and regulations.’ ” Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Meyer v. United States
Therefore, “[a]s long as the [military b]oard’s action comported with the procedural standards mandated by statute or regulation, considered the relevant evidence, and reached a reasonable conclusion, the court will not disturb the [b]oard’s decision.” Verbeck v. United States, 118 Fed.Cl. 420, 424 (2014) (citing Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1045 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lippmann v. United States
In reviewing challenges to military corrections board decisions under RCFC 52.1, the Court is “ ‘limited to determining whether a decision of the [correction [b]oard is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or.contrary to applicable statutes and regulations.’ ” Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Adams v. United States
Thus, this Court is “‘limited to determining whether a decision of the Correction Board is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to applicable statutes and regulations.’ ” Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.Cir.2011) (quoting Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153, 1156 (Fed.Cir.1983)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rogers v. United States
Standard of Review of Military Correction Board Decisions The scope of judicial review of military correction board decisions is a deferential one and is “limited to determining whether a decision of the Correction Board is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to applicable statutes and regulations.” Melendez Camilo *767 v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.Cir.2011) (quoting Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153, 1156 (Fed.Cir.1983)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mosqueda v. United States
Cir. 2014) (quoting Melendez Camilo v. 2 United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vellanti v. United States
Scope of Review of AFBCMR Decisions The scope of judicial review of military correction board decisions is a deferential one and is “limited to determining whether a decision of the Correction Board is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to applicable statutes and regulations.” Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.Cir.2011) (quoting Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153, 1156 (Fed.Cir.1983)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Klingenschmitt v. United States
The scope of judicial review of military correction board decisions is a defei*ential one and is “limited to determining whether a decision of the Correction Board is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to applicable statutes and regulations.” Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.Cir.2011) (quoting Heisig, 719 F.2d at 1156 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Verbeck v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1045 (Fed.Cir.2011); Helferty v. United States, 113 Fed.Cl. 308, 316 (2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cronin v. United States
(2×)
Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hoffman v. United States
Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1045 (Fed.Cir.2011) (“We presume thát actions taken by the Correction Board are valid, and the burden is upon the complainant to show otherwise.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Young v. United States
Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.Cir.2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hale v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
In this instance, “the scope of ... review for challenges to military correction board decisions is ‘limited to determining whether a decision of the Correction Board is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to applicable statutes and regulations.’” Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.Cir.2011) (quoting Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153, 1156 (Fed.Cir.1983) (in turn quoting de Cicco v. United States, 677 F.2d 66, 70 (Ct.Cl.1982))).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Taylor v. United States
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Moreover, both parties appear to concur that the presumption of regularity, as articulated in Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1045 (Fed.Cir.2011), applies to the decisions rendered by corrections boards involving application of the VASRD as required by the NDAA.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mendez v. United States
Defendant cites Federal Circuit precedent that “ ‘failure to mention specific evidence does not mean ... fail[ure] to consider that evidence.’ ” Id. (quoting Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1045 (Fed.Cir.2011) (citing FMC Corp. v. Hennessy Indus., Inc., 836 F.2d 521, 524 (Fed.Cir.1987))).
cited
Cited "see"
Cockerham v. United States
Cir. 1983)); accord Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
Pearson v. United States
Cir. l983)); accord Melendez Camilo v. United Sfates, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
Peoples v. United States
Thus, “when a correction board fails to correct an injustice clearly presented in the record before it, it is acting in violation of its mandate.” Yee v. United States, 512 F.2d 1383, 1387 (Ct.Cl.1975); accord Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.Cir.2011); Roth v. United States, 378 F.3d 1371, 1381 (Fed.Cir.2004); see also Skaradowski v. United States, 471 F.2d 627, 632 (Ct.Cl.1973) (finding that a correction board’s failure to correct a record containing an “obvious injustice” was “not supported by substantial evidence”).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Alford v. United States
See Dickinson, 527 U.S. at 162; see also Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044-46 (Fed.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Nancy Melendez CAMILO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee
v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee
2010-5069.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Nov 30, 2010.
Michael D.J. Eisenberg, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellant., Jessica R. Toplin, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Ap-pellee.
Unpublished
ON MOTION
ORDER
Nancy Melendez Camilo moves for leave to file her appendix out of time and for reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing her appeal for failure to file an appendix.
Upon consideration thereof,
It Is Ordered That:
Camilo’s motions are granted. The mandate is recalled, the dismissal order is vacated, and the appeal is reinstated. If the appendix has not already been submitted, it is due within 14 days of the date of filing of this order.