context: 6. Even if the court were to hold for plaintiff, any order would be limited to restoration of pay forfeited and rank, ex-pungement of reference to the Article 15 proceedings in plaintiff's records, and back-pay for the pay differential until plaintiff's enlistment expired. The court lacks the power to effect plaintiff's reenlistment.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 96 S.Ct. 948, 955
citation_a.parenthetical: "The established rule is that one is not entitled to the benefits of a position until he has been duly appointed to it...."
citation_a.sentence: United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 402, 96 S.Ct. 948, 955, 47 L.Ed. 114 (1976) (“The established rule is that one is not entitled to the benefits of a position until he has been duly appointed to it....”); see Maier v. Orr, 754 F.2d 973, 983 (Fed.Cir.1985) (no jurisdiction to award relief beyond current enlistment); Thompson v. United States, 221 Ct.Cl. 983 (1979) (no jurisdiction over claim for refusal of reenlistment absent some special provision of law giving a right to reenlist); Austin v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. at 723 (“United States has undertaken to pay ... [enlisted men] only to the end of the current enlistment, unless it properly discharges them prior to that time....”) (citations omitted).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: no jurisdiction over claim for refusal of reenlistment absent some special provision of law giving a right to reenlist
citation_b.sentence: United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 402, 96 S.Ct. 948, 955, 47 L.Ed. 114 (1976) (“The established rule is that one is not entitled to the benefits of a position until he has been duly appointed to it....”); see Maier v. Orr, 754 F.2d 973, 983 (Fed.Cir.1985) (no jurisdiction to award relief beyond current enlistment); Thompson v. United States, 221 Ct.Cl. 983 (1979) (no jurisdiction over claim for refusal of reenlistment absent some special provision of law giving a right to reenlist); Austin v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. at 723 (“United States has undertaken to pay ... [enlisted men] only to the end of the current enlistment, unless it properly discharges them prior to that time....”) (citations omitted).