Link, 226 Ct. Cl. 699 (Ct. Cl. 1981). · Go Syfert
Link, 226 Ct. Cl. 699 (Ct. Cl. 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
23 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Garcia-Gines v. United States (uscfc, 2017-04-14)
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Garcia-Gines v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2017 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
plaintiffs cause of action accrued in may 1972 because he had then demanded but been refused a physical evaluation board, and was released without disability retirement pay.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Jeun v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2016 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
plaintiffs cause of action accrued in may 1972 because he had then demanded but been refused a physical evaluation board, and was released without disability retirement pay.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dms Imaging, Inc. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2015 · confidence medium
Id. 9 Defendant relies on three cases for its proposition that the Tucker Act does not permit an agency to contract for payment of attorney’s fees, Kania v. United States, 650 F.2d 264 (Ct. Cl. 1981), Kurz & Root Co. v. United States, 652 F.2d 69 227 (Ct. Cl. 1981), and S.W.
cited Cited "see" Volk v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bullock, No. 46-79, 652 F.2d 69 , 1981 U.S.Ct.Cl.
cited Cited "see" Abrahams v. United States
Ct. Cl. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brandon v. United States, Ct.Cl., 652 F.2d 69 (1981); Murphy v. United States, Ct.Cl.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Charles v. Rice, Secretary USAF
1st Cir. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Candelaria v. United States, 5 Cl.Ct. 266, 273 (1984); see also Abatemarco v. United States, 652 F.2d 69 , 226 Ct.Cl. 708, 710-11 (1981).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Richard E. Wilson Corp. v. United States
Ct. Cl. · 1983 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Coleman v. Department of the Army, 652 F.2d 69 (Ct.Cl.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
George K. Link
No. 452-77.
United States Court of Claims.
Feb 24, 1981.
226 Ct. Cl. 699

Military pay; promotion; passover for promotion; defective Officer Effectiveness Reports; harmless error; when made a matter of record. — Plaintiff, a former Air Force captain who, having twice failed of promotion to the permanent grade of major, was involuntarily separated from service in accordance with the requirements of 10 U.S.C. § 8303(d) (1976), seeks review and invalidation of a decision by the Air Force Board for the Correction of Military Records (the Board) denying an application that sought the voidance of two Officer Effectiveness Reports (OERs), the removal of all non-selections for promotion to the temporary grades of major and the modification or reconstruction of his record[*700] so as to reflect a promotion to these grades upon initial consideration. Plaintiff seeks reinstatement and back pay. Plaintiff charges one of the OERs with being materially false and erroneous and the other with having been prepared and promulgated in contravention of standards prescribed by governing regulations. On May 28,1980 Trial Judge John P. Wiese filed a recommended opinion affirming the decision of the Board that insufficient relevant evidence had been presented by plaintiff to warrant a finding of probable error or injustice. The trial judge affirmed the Board’s conclusion that the nonobjectivity of the first challenged OER had not been substantiated, and that the second OER satisfied the minimum required period of 90 days, was authored by the proper rating official and was not changed after it had become a matter of record. The trial judge concluded that on the evidence presented, a case for the voidness of the challenged OERs has not been shown. There being, then, no occasion to say that plaintiff was not considered for promotion on the basis of a fair and objective record, the claims for reinstatement and back pay must be denied. On February 24, 1981 the court, by order, adopted the recommended decision of the trial judge as the basis for its judgment in this case and dismissed the petition.