54 Pages. See folder for details. Major John R.Foster, Capt.Thomas E.Gober,and Capt.Gerold E.Knapp, Plaintiffs. Clifford Alexander, Defendant. Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, hereby move this Honorable Court, pursuant to Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to grant summary judgment in their favor for the relief requested in the Complaint on the ground that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In support of this Motion plaintiffs file herewith a Memorandum of points and authorities, the record of proceedings before the Army Board for Correction of Military Records having previously been filed by the defenant. TABLE OF CONTENTS: Statement of the Case, Plaintiff's Contentions and Facts...............................................................................Page 1 ARGUMENT A.The Original 1975 Temporary Promotion Selection Boards were improperly composed and therefore Jurisdictionally Defective and their Actions therefore void and A Nullity Ab Initio and therefore could not be Retroactively Validated by any later action taken by the "Reconstituted" Selection Boards.......................................................................................................Page 15 1. The attempted retroactive validation of the 1975 Selection Promotion Boards in contrary to law..............................Page 24 2. The application of a presumption that the results of the "Reconstituted" Selection Boards show that Plaintiffs were not harmed by the action of the Original Selection Boards is Contrary to Law and Fact...........................................Page 25 B. The Original 1975 Selection Boards and the "Reconstituted" Boards acted in Violation of Army Regulations in effect at the relevant times in 1975..........................................................................................................Page 38 1. There was an improper reservation of 15 percent of the number of promotion vacancies to Members of the Secondary Zone.......Page 38 2. With reference to PLAINTIFF FOSTER, Neither the Original 1975 Selection Boards nor the "Reconstituted" Boards made the Proper Factual Findings to issue a Non-Selection for the Purposes of Discharge.....................................................Page 41 C. The Secretary's failure to void the Original 1975 Non-Selection resulted in a material error being present in the Plaintiffs' records before the 1976 Selection Boards entitling them to promotion reconsideration............................................Page 44 D. The action of the Defendant in not requiring a showing of harm by others similarly situated upon the same issues presented by the Plaintiffs deprives the Plaintiffs of the equal protection of the Laws Under the Fifth Amendment of The United States Constitution....................................................................................................................Page 46 CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................Page 47