or attending anything until after [sic] further consultation with legal representation.... Upon further consultation with legal representation, I will contact you directly. I request all further communication from the unit or affiliated personnel cease.” Plaintiffs Officer Evaluation Report from August 3, 2006 to August 2, 2007, also noted that plaintiff was “disrespectful on several emails to his chain of command and failed to comply with numerous direct orders.” Given this long pattern of disrespectful statements, the ABCMR correctly determined that plaintiff engaged in misconduct. In addition to the claims addressed, and rejected, on the merits above, defendant contends that plaintiff also makes several allegations he did not raise before the ABCMR. These claims includ ir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Murakami v. United States, 398 F.3d 1342,
holding that the petitioners failure to raise his ineffective assistance of counsel claim before the bia deprived the district court of jurisdiction to hear the issue holding the government waived its argument on appeal that the defendant did not have standing to challenge a search when it failed to raise the argument to the district court holding that plaintiff waived claims that he failed to raise in petition before the relevant military correction board holding that the court of federal claims correctly concluded that plaintiff waived his argument concerning his fathers constructive travel restriction by not first raising the argument with the administrative agency holding that plaintiff waived his argument of ineffective counsel in front of the united states court of federal claims because he failed to raise the issue in the first instance with the air force board for the correction of military records