Sheridon H. Groves v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• declining to speculate on future promotions or lack thereof during the constructive active-duty period
• ap- plying Piccone and noting that the employee “had to prove that he was ready, willing, and able to serve”
• claim stated because reservist had returned to “constructive active duty with an indefinite service obligation” prior to wrongfully discharge
• “no court is qualified to review the substantive merits of a decision [committed to the discretion of the military], so long as the decision comports with any procedural standards mandated by statute or regulation”
• “[N]o court is qualified to review the substantive merits of a decision [committed to the discretion of the military], so long as the decision comports with any procedural standards mandated by statute or regulation.”
• “He is entitled to constructive active duty credit, with all corresponding back pay and allowances, for as long as he retained this status—that is, until this active duty status ended as a result of some action releasing him from active duty.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).