context: A district court's "ability to review matters related to military discharges is limited, as military personnel decisions themselves lie outside the court's jurisdiction."
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 12 F.Supp. 140, 140
citation_a.parenthetical: while "courts do sometimes review the actions of military agencies, the Court's jurisdiction in this area is typically limited to challenges to procedures -- it does not extend to the merits of a promotion decision"
citation_a.sentence: See also Reilly, 12 F.Supp. at 140 (while “courts do sometimes review the actions of military agencies, the Court’s jurisdiction in this area is typically limited to challenges to procedures — it does not extend to the merits of a promotion decision”) (emphasis in original). In line with this caselaw, the Court concludes that the BOI acted in a similarly discretionary manner and rendered a recommendation on a non-justiciable personnel decision.
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.parenthetical: Army decision to discharge and other "underlying personnel actions" were "not reviewable"
citation_b.sentence: Burt v. Winter, 503 F.Supp.2d 388, 390 (D.D.C.2007) (citing Piersall v. Winter, 435 F.3d 319, 321-22 (D.C.Cir.2006) (claims for retroactive promotion are non-justiciable)); Reilly v. Sec’y of the Navy, 12 F.Supp.3d 125,140 (D.D.C.2014) (merits of an individual military promotion not jus-ticiable); Caez v. United States, 815 F.Supp.2d 184, 188 n.4 (D.D.C.2011) (Army decision to discharge and other “underlying personnel actions” were “not reviewable”).