¶1Richard P. Fox, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
¶2Steven D. Petersen, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
¶5Thomas Blevins, an Air Force lieutenant colonel, was disappointed when he was not selected for promotion to colonel. After exhausting his administrative remedies, he sued- the Secretary of the Air Force. He appeals an adverse judgment on the district court pleadings.1
¶6Blevins believes he was not promoted because of the inaccuracy or incompleteness of his personnel file. His administrative requests that the file be amended, either by the insertion of a “letter of mitigation” 2 or by changing an Officer Effectiveness Report in the file in accord with the letter, were all denied. In this action Blevins seeks judicial review of the administrative denials as well as actual promotion to colonel.
¶7None of the various theories advanced by Blevins in support of civilian judicial review finds support in the cases. His constitutional arguments fall because Blevins had no liberty or property interest in being promoted. See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972); Pauls v. Secretary of Air Force, 457 F.2d 294, 297 (1st Cir. 1972); Knehans v. Callaway, 403 F.Supp. 290, 296 (D.D.C.1975), aff’d sub nom. Knehans v. Alexander, 184 U.S.App.D.C. 420, 566 F.2d 312 (D.C.Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 995, 98 S.Ct. 1646, 56 L.Ed.2d 83 (1978).
¶8His other arguments similarly fall. The plaintiff officer points to no breach of regulation, or statutory or other published procedures. He alleges no improper command influence or other glaring military error such as were found in the few cases in which civilian judicial review resulted in relief. See, e. g., Skinner v. United States, 594 F.2d 824 (Ct.Cl.1979); Yee v. United States, 512 F.2d 1383 (Ct.Cl.1975).
¶9Blevins also raises a claim under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a). However, the Air Force regulations implementing the Privacy Act limit corrections to “factual matters,” 32 C.F.R. § 806b.l7.3 Blevins requested correction not of an error of fact, but of an error of judgment. Therefore, the Privacy Act simply does not apply.
¶10Affirmed.