Tindal v. McHugh

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that because the ABCMR applied Army regulations in its analysis and evaluated all of the evidence before it, its decision was supported at least by substantial evidence, and was not arbitrary and capricious
• “[T]he Board is not required to make a claimant’s case for him or 13 These Board decisions do not appear to be in the administrative record before the Court. 23 sift through the materials submitted by a claimant to discern whether any implied arguments are being made”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).