Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Captain Milbert Mindes, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Dr. Robert Seaman, Secretary of the Air Force, et al.,defendants-appellees.no. 73-3947 Summary Calendar.**rule 18, 5 Cir., Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970,431 F.2d 409, Part I
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. - 501 F.2d 175
Sept. 20, 1974
Charles M. Holcomb, Cocoa, Fla., William A. Jacob, Orlando, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant.
John L. Briggs, U.S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., Harrison T. Slaughter, Jr., Jeffry R. Jontz, Asst. U.S. Attys., Orlando, Fla., William Kanter, Judith H. Norris, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellees.
Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and THORNBERRY and AINSWORTH, Circuit judges.
PER CURIAM.
Captain Mindes sought correction of his military records, 10 U.S.C. 1552, 1553, after he was twice passed over for promotion to Air Force major and was thus subject to mandatory release from active duty. On remand from this Court, Mindes v. Seaman, 5 Cir., 1971, 453 F.2d 197, the district court denied relief. We affirm.
Appellant failed to show that his not being selected for promotion was due solely to information contained about him in an Officer Effectiveness Report or that this report was factually erroneous. Absent proof of such error, ratings and promotion decisions are peculiarly within the discretion of military authority. Cf. Mindes v. Seaman, supra, at 201.
Appellant's allegation of denial of equal protection also fails since there was no showing of discrimination in the promotion regulations at issue or in their application.
Finally, there is no merit to Mindes' claim that he was denied due process of law because the Correction Board did not grant him a hearing and did not issue written findings of fact. Mindes specifically waived appearance at the hearing, and written findings are not required when appearance has been waived.
Affirmed.