for Judicial Review of Military Promotion Decisions In reviewing a determination of the Secretary of a military department regarding the promotion of an officer, the court “may set aside the Secretary’s determination only if the court finds the determination is — (i) arbitrary and capricious; (ii) not based on substantial evidence; (iii) a result of material error of fact or material administrative error; or (iv) otherwise contrary to law.” 10 U.S.C. § 628(g)(1)(A). “Adjudication of these claims requires the district court to determine only whether the Secretary’s decision making process was deficient, not whether his decision was correct.” Kreis v. Sec’y of the Air Force, 866 F.2d 1508, 1511 (D.C.Cir.1989); see also Guy v. United States, 221 Ct.Cl. 427, 608 F.2d 867, 874 (1979) (<HOLDING>). The court must employ an “ ‘unusually
holding that final decision of state board of education should not be upset unless unreasonable and unsupported by the record or violative of the legislative will holding that even though an executive order mandating agency consideration of environmental justice concerns created no private right of action for an agencys failure to comply with that mandate the court would review the agencys action as an exercise of discretion under the apa and nepa holding that the court should not upset an agencys nonpromotion decision absent clear legal entitlement to it because promotion under the selection board system results from the exercise of discretionary functions reserved for the executive branch holding that courts must defer to executive branch regulations implementing statutes so long as agencys regulation is based on a permissible construction of the statute holding chief of police an executive officer because a member of the executive branch and an officer