George L. Sanford v. United States of America, United States Army
Cases that cite this one
32 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Thomas v. Morton (United States District Court for the District of Arizona 1976)
- Nolen v. Schlesinger (5th Cir. 1974)
- Rickson v. Ward (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1973)
- Amato v. Chafee (District Court, District of Columbia 1972)
- Multiple Use, Inc. v. Morton (United States District Court for the District of Arizona 1972)
- Charles P. Burns v. John O. Marsh, Jr., Individually and as Secretary of the Army (9th Cir. 1987)
- Wronke v. Marsh (District Court, C.D. Illinois 1985)
- Temple v. Orr (District Court, M.D. Tennessee 1984)
- Karl Ballenger v. John O. Marsh, Jr., Secretary of the Army (8th Cir. 1983)
- Schmidt v. United States (Court of Claims 1983)
- Watkins v. United States Army (District Court, W.D. Washington 1982)
- Blackwell v. Marsh (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1982)
- Blevins v. Plummer (9th Cir. 1980)
- Blevins v. Honorable Plummer (9th Cir. 1980)
- Martinez v. Brown (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1978)
- Johnson v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1977)
- John E. Ampleman v. Honorable James R. Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense, and John L. McLucas Secretary of the Air Force (8th Cir. 1976)
- Jesse L. Horn v. Honorable James R. Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense (8th Cir. 1975)
- Hobart A. Baker v. James A. Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense (6th Cir. 1975)
- Hodges v. Callaway (5th Cir. 1974)
- Multiple Use, Inc. v. Rogers C. B. Morton, Secretary of the Interior (9th Cir. 1974)
- Hodges v. Callaway (5th Cir. 1974)
- 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)
- Doe v. Chafee (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1973)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.