or capriciously when they chose not to promote plaintiff to captain, or reinstate plaintiff to the Army Reserve. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has established that, when the United States Court of Federal Claims is “called upon to review a decision of a corrections board, or of a Secretary taken upon recommendation from a corrections board, the standard of review is whether the decision is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to law. See Skinner v. United States, 219 Ct.Cl. 322, 594 F.2d 824 (Ct.Cl.1979).” Porter v. United States, 163 F.3d 1304, 1312 (Fed.Cir.1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 809, 120 S.Ct. 41, 145 L.Ed.2d 37 (1999); see also Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 539, 119 S.Ct. 1538, 143 L.Ed.2d 720 (1999) (<HOLDING>); Barnes v. United States, 473 F.3d 1356, 1361
holding that an attorneys fee award must be reasonable in relation to the success achieved quoting hensley v eckerhart 461 us 424 436 103 sct 1933 76 led2d 40 1983 holding that an agencys decision is to be set aside only if it is arbitrary capricious an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law  holding that bcmr decisions are subject to judicial review by federal courts and can be set aside if they are arbitrary capricious or not based on substantial evidence quoting chappell v wallace 462 us 296 303 103 sct 2362 76 led2d 586 1983 alterations in original holding an authority ruling may only be set aside if arbitrary capricious an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law holding that court may set aside lsc decisions that are arbitrary and capricious or are not based on substantial evidence