to Garrett, because he was still a member of the armed services at the time of the Board proceedings. The issue before the court in Keating was whether the plaintiff was a member of the armed services at the time of his court-martial. He had earlier been given an honorable discharge. In holding that the Navy had no jurisdiction to conduct the court-martial proceedings under the facts before him, the court noted that "an honorable discharge is an extremely valuable property right." Id. at 479. In the matter before us, there is no dispute that Garrett was a member of the Marine Corps at the time of the administrative discharge proceedings. 8 . A long line of authority supports the reasoning of Chappell: Rostker v. Goldburg, 453 U.S. 57, 66, 101 S.Ct. 2646, 2652, 69 L.Ed.2d 478 (1981) (<HOLDING>); Brown v. Glines, 444 U.S. 348, 360, 100 S.Ct.
recognizing judiciarys customary policy of deference to the president in matters of foreign affairs recognizing strong need for a healthy deference to legislative and executive judgments in the area of military affairs recognizing in the psc context that a legislative delegation of power to a legislative or executive agency permitting an agency to declare what the law is violates floridas separation of powers doctrine holding that state attorney general as member of executive department may assert claim of executive privilege recognizing as a matter of law executive privilege for governor