Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

501 F.2d 175

Docket No. 73-3947

Mindes v. Seaman

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1974-09-20

2 counsel of record

Relies on Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Mindes v. Seaman

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1974-09-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 2003

6 federal appellate · 1 district ·

301974198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

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.

¶1

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.

¶2

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.

¶3

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.

¶4

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.

¶5

Affirmed.

/501/f2d/175 · .json · Public domain