Ostler v. United States

Type

Opinion of the Court

Per curiam

Yes — no individual author

Filed

July 15, 2002

Case

Ostler v. United States

Case status

Decided

Source The opinion is per curiam: issued in the name of the court, with no individual author. This is a fact about the opinion, not missing data.

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

PER CURIAM. Eric Ostler appeals the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims denying his motion for summary judgment for back pay and ancillary relief from his separation from the Navy and granting the United States’ cross motion for summary judgment for reimbursement of Ostler’s United States Naval Academy tuition. Ostler v. United States, No. 00-38C (Fed.Cl. June 6, 2001). Because a board of inquiry was not required under statute or Navy regulation, Ostler’s separation procedure was proper. And because he is bound by the Agreement to Serve and Degree Requirements to repay his tuition, we affirm. I The procedures by which boards of inquiry shall be convened to determine whether an officer should be separated from the service or retained on active duty are set out in 10 U.S.C. §§ 1181-1187 . A board of inquiry entails the appearance of the officer whose case is under consideration, representation by counsel, and access to the appropriate records. Id. § 1185(a)(3), (4). Ostler argues that his separation was improper because the Navy failed to convene a board of inquiry. We do not agree. Holley v. United States, 124 F.3d 1462, 1468 (Fed.Cir.1997), held that sections 1181…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.