Courts in this jurisdiction have repeatedly held that the procedures applicable to AFBCMR actions are subject to judicial review. See Barnes v. U.S., 473 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("a challenge to the particular procedure followed in rendering a military decision may present a justiciable controversy") (internal quotations omitted); Dysart v. U.S., 369 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("The Corrections Board statute, 10 U.S.C. § 1552, provides for correction of military records . . . and for judicial review of the Board's decision"); Chambers v. Green, 544 F. Supp. 2d 10, 13 (D.D.C. 2008) ("Decisions of military records board can be set aside if they are arbitrary, capricious, or not based on substantial evidence.") (internal quotations omitted);Levant, 384 F. Supp. 2d at 267 ("[T]his Court does have jurisdiction to evaluate the reasonableness of the AFBCMR's decision not to take corrective action"). While the merits of promotion decisions may be nonjusticiable, "courts can evaluate whether the military follows the procedures mandated by statute or by its own regulations when making promotion decisions."Barnes v. U.S., 473 F.3d at 1361 (citing Dysart, 369 F.3d

While "the merits of a decision committed wholly to the discretion of the military are not subject to judicial review, a challenge to the particular procedure followed in rendering a military decision may present a justiciable controversy." Id.; see also Barnes v. United States, 473 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In particular, this court "can evaluate whether the military follows procedures mandated by statute or by its own regulations when making promotion decisions."

The Court of Federal Claims must affirm the Board's decision denying correction of Naval records "unless it is arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, or unsupported by substantial evidence." Barnes v. United States, 473 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (internal quotations omitted); see also Metz v. United States, 466 F.3d 991, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2006). We review a decision of the Court of Federal Claims granting or denying a motion for judgment on the administrative record de novo, applying the same standard to the Board's decision as was applied by the Court of Federal Claims.

Danny T. BARNES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.Case below, 473 F.3d 1356. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.

We review the grant of a motion for judgment on the administrative record de novo. Barnes v. United States, 473 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We do "not disturb the decision of the corrections board unless it is arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, or unsupported by substantial evidence."

However, even assuming the regulation requires Cronin to actually receive the written notice before the effective date, Cronin was provided a full opportunity to respond to the letter, so any procedural error as to the date she received it, and thus with respect to SECNAVINST 1420.1A and 10 U.S.C. § 624(d)(2)-(3), was harmless. Barnes v. United States, 473 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.Cir.2007) (finding any procedural defect with respect to notice of a promotion delay to be harmless when the serviceman was provided an opportunity to respond and no action or decision is made against him in the interim). Lastly, though her personnel record at one point indicated the promotion had occurred, the Trial Court noted that Cronin never received or executed an appointment form regarding the actual promotion, a form that she had received and executed in connection with all previous promotions and that “normally” carries the “authority to effect promotion.”

II This court reviews the trial court's determination on the legal issue of the government's conduct, in a grant of judgment upon the administrative record, without deference, applying the same standard of review that the Court of Federal Claims applied. Barnes v. United States, 473 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing Chambers v. United States, 417 F.3d 1218, 1227 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Accordingly, the scope of our review for challenges to military correction board decisions is "`limited to determining whether a decision of the Correction Board is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to applicable statutes and regulations.'"

On appeal of a judgment on the administrative record by the Court of Federal Claims, "[w]e apply the same standard of review as the United States Court of Federal Claims, which means `we will not disturb the decision of the corrections board unless it is arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, or unsupported by substantial evidence.'" Barnes v. United States, 473 F.3d 1356, 1361 (2007) (citing Chambers v. United States, 417 F.3d 1218, 1227 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). The scope of our review of the record is limited to the administrative record before us. Axiom Res. Mgmt. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

For our part, we review the decision of the Court of Federal Claims granting the government's motion for judgment on the administrative record without deference, reviewing de novo whether the plaintiff met her burden of proving that the ABCMR's decision was arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, or unsupported by substantial evidence. Barnes v. United States, 473 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Applying the applicable standards of review, we see no error in the decision of the Court of Federal Claims granting the government's motion under RCFC 52.1 for judgment on the administrative record.

Because this is a procedural due process claim the court notes that “a challenge to the particular procedure followed in rendering a military decision may present a justiciable controversy[.]” Barnes v. United States, 473 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quotation cleaned up). For example, in Reilly v. Secretary of Navy, plaintiff brought an improper discharge claim stemming from the Navy's decision denying plaintiff two promotions. 12 F.Supp.3d at 126-27.