green
Positive treatment
unpublished
Quoted verbatim 1×
31.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Cited for
At page 1044 Reviewing administrative board decisions under 5 U.S.C. § 70640 citing cases
- Moyer v. United States, No. 24-1105 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 11, 2025).publishedMelendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
- Wheeler v. United States, No. 22-133 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 19, 2025).publishedTherefore, 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 (Fe…
- Soldevila-Cuesta v. United States, No. 17-1049 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 14, 2018).unpublishedIn 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 contrar…
- Campbell v. United States, No. 17-1142 (Fed. Cl. July 9, 2018).publishedBoard 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.
- Brown v. United States, 133 Fed. Cl. 186 (Fed. Cl. 2017).publishedIn 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…
- Porter v. United States, 131 Fed. Cl. 552 (Fed. Cl. 2017).publishedThus, 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 S…
- Lippmann v. United States, 127 Fed. Cl. 238 (Fed. Cl. 2016).publishedIn 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.contrar…
- Adams v. United States, 126 Fed. Cl. 645 (Fed. Cl. 2016).publishedThus, 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,…
- Rogers v. United States, 124 Fed. Cl. 757 (Fed. Cl. 2016).publishedStandard 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, capr…
- Mosqueda v. United States, No. 14-958 (Fed. Cl. July 24, 2015).unpublishedCir. 2014) (quoting Melendez Camilo v. 2 United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
Show 10 more citing cases
- Vellanti v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 570 (Fed. Cl. 2015).publishedScope 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…
- Klingenschmitt v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 163 (Fed. Cl. 2014).publishedThe 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…
- Cronin v. United States, 765 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2014).publishedMelendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.Cir.2011).
- Young v. United States, 497 F. App'x 53 (Fed. Cir. 2012).unpublishedMelendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.Cir.2011).
- Hale v. United States, 107 Fed. Cl. 339 (Fed. Cl. 2012).published 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 contra…
- Cockerham v. United States, No. 18-46 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 4, 2018).publishedCir. 1983)); accord Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
- Pearson v. United States, No. 16-1250 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 6, 2018).publishedCir. l983)); accord Melendez Camilo v. United Sfates, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed.
- Peoples v. United States, 101 Fed. Cl. 245 (Fed. Cl. 2011).publishedThus, “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 Sta…
- Alford v. United States, No. 15-1583 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 18, 2018).publishedSee Dickinson, 527 U.S. at 162; see also Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044-46 (Fed.
- Miller v. United States, 120 Fed. Cl. 772 (Fed. Cl. 2015).publishedReview of an administrative decision is accordingly “limited to determining whether the action was arbitrary, capricious, or in bad faith, or unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to law, regulation, or mandatory published proce…
At page 1045 Presumption of regularity in administrative board decisions11 citing casesWe . . . presume that the Correction Board performed its function according to the regulations and considered all of the [applicant’s] records.
- Hatmaker v. United States, No. 13-719 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 1, 2018).published(We . . . presume that the Correction Board performed its function according to the regulations and considered all of the [applicant’s] records.)
- Manker v. United States, No. 24-612 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 30, 2025).publishedThe 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.
- Wild v. United States, No. 21-2225 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 21, 2022).published 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.
- Bias v. United States, 131 Fed. Cl. 350 (Fed. Cl. 2017).published“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. U…
- Meyer v. United States, 127 Fed. Cl. 372 (Fed. Cl. 2016).publishedTherefore, “[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…
- Verbeck v. United States, 118 Fed. Cl. 420 (Fed. Cl. 2014).published Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1045 (Fed.Cir.2011); Helferty v. United States, 113 Fed.Cl. 308, 316 (2013).
- Hoffman v. United States, 560 F. App'x 987 (Fed. Cir. 2014).unpublishedMelendez 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.
- Taylor v. United States, 106 Fed. Cl. 443 (Fed. Cl. 2012).published 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 applicati…
- Mendez v. United States, 103 Fed. Cl. 370 (Fed. Cl. 2012).publishedDefendant 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…
At page 1043 cited at this page1 citing case
- Holmes v. United States, 98 Fed. Cl. 767 (Fed. Cl. 2011).publishedSee Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153, 1157 (Fed.Cir.1983) (“Under the substantial evidence rale, all of the competent evidence must be considered, whether original or supplemental, and whether or not it supports the challenged conclu…
At page 1046 «We ... presume that the Correction Board performed its function according to the regulations and considered all of the [applicant’s] records.1 citing case
- Miller v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 717 (Fed. Cl. 2015).published(«We ... presume that the Correction Board performed its function according to the regulations and considered all of the [applicant’s] records.)
Other citing cases
- Keith L. Keller v. the United States 0, 113 Fed. Cl. 779 (Fed. Cl. 2013).published
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.
Unpublished opinion
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.