in an ... other than honorable discharge. Mr. Colon appealed the ABCMR’s denial of disability retirement for his second enlistment to the Court of Federal Claims. On the government’s motion and Mr. Colon’s cross-motion for judgment upon the administrative record, the Court of Federal Claims found that the ABCMR’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to law. Colon, 71 Fed.Cl. at 486. DISCUSSION This court has jurisdiction over this appeal based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 2522 and 1295(a)(3). The Court of Federal Claims is required to make factual findings under Court of Federal Claims Rule (“RCFC”) 52.1 from the record as if it were conducting a trial on the record. See Ban-num, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346, 1355-57 (Fed.Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). This court reviews the Court of Federal
holding that judicial review under apa standards is alone sufficient to preclude a bivens action holding that additional records submitted to the appeals council are part of the administrative record for judicial review holding that judicial review of decisions of military correction boards is review of the administrative record conducted under the administrative procedure act holding that under rcfc 561 summary judgment standards are not pertinent to judicial review upon an administrative record holding that because here the statutes in issue provide for judicial review via citizen suit provisions yet do not set forth a standard for that review judicial review is limited to apa review on the administrative record