William Havens v, Raymond Edwin Mabus, Jr., Secretary of the Navy Chairman, Board for Corrections of Naval Records

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a district court 4 may abuse its discretion not to remand for benefits when all of these conditions are 5 met
• noting that 28 U.S.C. § 2501 is “the Tucker Act’s jurisdictional, six-year statute of limitations”
• noting that claim preclusion only bars a subsequent lawsuit “involving the same claims or cause of action” where a “final valid judgment on the merits” was issued by a “court of competent jurisdiction” to provide complete relief
• explaining that an informal PEB determines whether an active duty service member is “fit” or “unfit” to continue service, while it determines whether a non-active duty reservist is “physically qualified” or “not physically qualified” to continue service
• noting “APA claims challenging [Board] decisions accrued when the decisions issued”
• BCNR treated application for review as a new application and expressly stated that it examined the merits

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).