Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Biddle v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided December 13, 1968No. 365-65Published

1ConcurrenceDavis, Judge

I join in the judgment on the ground the court rejects. As I understand the Army regulation on relief of reserve officers from active duty for inefficiency (Keserve Components— Eelief of Officers 'and Warrant Officers from Active Duty, Dept, of the Army, AE 135-178, paras. 50, 51, Dec. 5,1958.), it provides for an annual screening instituted by Army headquarters, not for repeated screenings within one year at the instance and option of that headquarters. Para. 50. Commanding officers, on the other hand, can make recommendations for relief at any time within the year if they feel that some…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Friedman v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1958
  2. Dayley v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1965
  3. DeBusk v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1955
  4. Chisholm v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1960
  5. Angrisani v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1965

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API