DANIEL SANDOVAL V. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, No. 17-36027 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 21 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DANIEL M. SANDOVAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-36027 D.C. No. 3:17-cv-05034-RBL v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; ARMY BOARD CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 15, 2018** Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Daniel M. Sandoval appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action challenging the Army Board for Correction of Military Records’s (“ABCMR”) denial of Sandoval’s application for correction of his * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). military record. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s decision on cross-motions for summary judgment. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants because Sandoval failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the ABCMR’s decision to deny his application was arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by substantial evidence. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2); Guerrero v. Stone, 970 F.2d 626, 628 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth standard governing judicial review of ABCMR decisions). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Sandoval’s motion to supplement the record (Docket Entry No. 14) is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 17-36027

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.