record of each person whose name was referred to it. 10 U.S.C. § 628(c)(1) (2000). The SSBs that declined to promote Richey on his corrected military record submitted reports to the Secretary that met these certification requirements. (J.A. 201-07). The SSB reports certified that “[t]he board, acting under oath and having in view the special fitness of an officer and the efficiency of the Army, has carefully considered the record of every officer whose name was furnished to it under Section 628, Title 10.” (J.A. at 201, 205) (emphasis added). The court could not require the SSBs to meet additional reporting requirements beyond those that were mandated by the statute. See Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 435 U.S. 519, 548, 98 S.Ct. 1197, 55 L.Ed.2d 460 (1978) (<HOLDING>). To be sure, even when the statutory
holding that court may not impose procedural requirements on agency decisionmaking that go beyond those of the administrative procedure act holding that even if the minimum mandatory exceeds the statutory maximum the court must impose the minimum mandatory holding that an order by the trial court remanding the cause to the agency to impose a sanction other than the one imposed by the agency was not a final and appealable order because it did not terminate the litigation between the parties on the merits holding that a court cannot impose procedural re quirements on an agency beyond the minimum requirements imposed by statute holding that the requirements of explanation and consideration of alternatives do not impose additional procedural requirements upon an agency in contravention of vermont yankee