Count 4 of the complaint, plaintiffs claim that the ABCMR failed to comply with regulations permitting transfer “To Rehabilitate Where A Problem Exists,” count 8 of the complaint, violation of due process by ineffective counsel, count 10 of the complaint, plaintiffs claim of a conflict of interest within the Board of Inquiry, and count 11 of the complaint, plaintiffs allegation that Board of Inquiry failed to provide plaintiff with an ethnic minority representative. Defendant is correct that plaintiff did not assert the allegations in counts 4, 8, 10, and 11 before the ABCMR. When a plaintiff fails to raise arguments before the ABCMR, he or she is precluded from raising those arguments for the first time before this court. See Walls v. United States, 582 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed.Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); Metz v. United States, 466 F.3d 991, 999
holding that there is no right to habeas review of administrative evidentiary determinations before a district court where direct review of the administrative proceedings is available in the appellate courts holding that judicial review of decisions of military correction boards is review of the administrative record conducted under the administrative procedure act 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 holding that in its review of the irs exercise of discretion the court is limited to a review of the administrative record holding that judicial review of final agency action under the administrative procedure act  provides the proper procedure to challenge the sufficiency of an eis