substantial evidence. Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296, 303, 103 S.Ct. 2362, 2367, 76 L.Ed.2d 586 (1983); Sanders v. United States, 219 Ct.Cl. 285, 298, 594 F.2d 804, 811 (1979). Nonetheless, defendant contends that the entire case should be dismissed because it involves issues that are within the discretion of the military. Defendant points out that civilian courts should be reluctant to interfere in military disciplinary decisions. See Chappell, 462 U.S. at 300, 103 S.Ct. at 2365. Therefore, defendant argues that any judicial review in this case would involve an unjustified intrusion into internal military personnel decisions. It is true that certain military decisions are outside the scope of judicial review. See, e.g., Sargisson v. United States, 913 F.2d 918, 922 (Fed.Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Voge v. United States, 844 F.2d 776, 780
holding sec decision reviewable when commission has reviewed staff decision holding that the findings of fact conclusions of law and decision signed by the school board president constituted the decision of the board holding that a reviewing court is not to substitute its decision for that of the board holding that the decision by a correction board that one officer effectiveness report would not have altered a reserve officers prospects for retention on active duty was not reviewable because there were no tests or standards by which a court could evaluate the decision holding that the findings of fact conclusions of law and decision signed by the school boards president constituted the decision of the board