denial decisions are supported by the substantial evidence in the administrative record and are in accordance with applicable law. And so, the Court GRANTS the government’s motion for judgment upon the administrative record and DENIES plaintiffs cross-motion for judgment upon the administrative record. A. The ABCMR’s Decisions Are In Accordance With Applicable Law And Supported By Substantial Evidence The administrative record demonstrates that the ABCMR’s decisions to deny plaintiffs military benefits claim are supported by the substantial evidence in the administrative record and are in accordance with the applicable statutes and military regulations. And so, the Court will not set aside the ABCMR’s sound decisions. Barnick v. United States, 591 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (<HOLDING>). As an initial matter, a review of the
holding the court will not disturb the decision of the abcmr unless it was arbitrary capricious contrary to law or unsupported by substantial evidence holding that under chevron step two courts may not disturb an agency rule unless it is arbitrary or capricious in substance or manifestly contrary to the statute internal quotations omitted holding that the citys decision was arbitrary and capricious when it was contrary to the evidence and based solely on speculation arising from prior unrelated acts holding that when the agencys decision was based on an erroneous and completely unsupported assumption the decision was arbitrary and capricious holding that evidence contrary to an administrators decision does not make the decision arbitrary and capricious so long as a reasonable basis appears for the decision