Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040

Ms. Melendez Camilo served in the USAF from 1979 and was promoted to captain in 1981, later being considered but not promoted to major in 1987 and 1988.
She was discharged from active duty on January 31, 1989, and placed on Inactive Status List Reserve.
She petitioned the Air Force Correction Board to remove a contested OER (1984–1985) arguing it incorrectly reflected her performance, which the Board voided and removed in 1989, and considered her for major via an SSB.
Following reinstatement in 1995, she was promoted to major, with subsequent assignments including AFROTC in Puerto Rico and Maxwell AFB, with mixed promotion considerations (notably for lieutenant colonel).
In 2002 she sought correction/relief for direct promotion to lieutenant colonel arguing the seven-year break and Ramos OPRs impacted her record; the Board denied relief.
She filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims challenging the Board's decision as arbitrary and capricious and prejudiced by her break in service; the trial court granted judgment for the government, which she timely appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Correction Board acted arbitrarily by prejudging Melendez Camilo’s promotion prospects due to her seven-year break in service.	Melendez Camilo argues the Board prejudged her because of the break and the Ramos OPRs.	Government contends the Board thoroughly reviewed all records and correctly considered evidence, including Ramos OPRs.	No error; Board properly considered evidence and did not prejudice against her.
Whether the Ramos OPRs, written by Ramos, show the Board failed to consider relevant evidence affecting promotion.	Ramos OPRs were integral and their omission from explicit discussion signals failure to consider them.	Ramos OPRs were before the Board and their impact was encompassed by the full record; lack of explicit mention does not show non-consideration.	Presumption of proper consideration stands; no reversible error found.
What standard applies to review of the Correction Board's decision on substantial evidence and arbitrariness.	Court should apply de novo review to ensure no prejudice and arbitrary results.	Court applies the same standard as the trial court, reviewing for arbitrariness and lack of substantial evidence.	Court reviewed under the same standard as the trial court and affirmed

Roth v. United States, 378 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (correction boards correct injustices via §1552 relief; material error inquiry)
Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (scope of review for correction board decisions; substantial evidence standard)
de Cicco v. United States, 677 F.2d 66 (Ct.Cl. 1982) (role of correction boards and justice in records)
Barnes v. United States, 473 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (review without deference in judgments upon administrative records)
Chambers v. United States, 417 F.3d 1218 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (scope of review of agency findings on administrative records)
Plant Genetic Sys., N.V. v. DeKalb Genetics Corp., 315 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (weighing evidence on mixed factual questions)
FMC Corp. v. Hennessy Indus., Inc., 836 F.2d 521 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (presumption that fact finders review all evidence unless stated otherwise)
Cooper v. United States, 203 Ct. Cl. 300 (Ct. Cl. 1973) (presumption of proper consideration by administrative bodies)
Armstrong v. United States, 205 Ct. Cl. 754 (Ct. Cl. 1974) (consideration of evidence by correction boards)