Mueller, Douglas J. v. England, Gordon R.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the plaintiff could not prevail on Privacy Act claim seeking removal of an officer evaluation because there was no evidence of verifiable facts from which to conclude that the evaluation was “inaccurate”
• affirming reasonableness of the Board’s position where it had “substantially concurr[ed]” in the view of the Navy Personnel Command
• upholding Navy’s finding of no diligence when appellant “made no documented effort to correct his record” until about two years after the report
• “nothing unreasonable” about Board’s finding that there was insufficient evidence of injustice where neither plaintiff nor affiant had identified a “single factual inaccuracy” in contested report
• “‘[T]he Privacy Act allows for amendment of factual or historical errors. It is . . . not a vehicle for amending the judgments of federal officials or . . . other[s].’” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).