provide an appropriate basis for the type of declaratory relief sought here. See note 11, supra. 13 . In Voge, 844 F.2d at 780 n. 1, the Federal Circuit recognized that allegations of unlawful discharge due to statutory violations by the military are reviewable under the standard set forth in Sanders. Although plaintiff does not allege that the Air Force violated a statute in discharging him, he does allege that the Air Force unlawfully applied Air Force regulations in discharging him. 14 . The Supreme Court did note that the arguments advanced by the government for a “sweeping rule” that estoppel may never run against the government were " ‘substantial’.” Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 423, 110 S.Ct. 2465, 2470, 110 L.Ed.2d 387 (1990) 2, 38 L.Ed.2d 7 (1973) (<HOLDING>); Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308, 314, 81
holding that neither injunctive nor declaratory relief is available to private litigants under the fdcpa holding on an objection to confirmation of plan that the debtors failure to file tax returns before filing the chapter 13 plan and debtors failure for six months to comply with federal law constituted a lack of good faith sufficient to warrant dismissal of the case holding that neither failure to publicize the rights of naturalization nor the failure to have an authorized naturalization representative available constituted affirmative misconduct sufficient to estop the government from relying on a time bar to filing naturalization petitions holding that failure to review the evidence presented to the magistrate and failure even to have a transcript filed with the district court  was reversible error holding that neither failure to object to an instruction nor an express statement of no objection to an instruction waive plain error review pursuant to rule 3020