### The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States 1 

### District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. ___________________ No. 95-3306/95-3687

___________________ James Frederick Newport, * * Appellant, * * Appeals from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Secretary Stone, Department of * [UNPUBLISHED] the Army, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: August 23, 1996 Filed: September 5, 1996

___________ Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this consolidated appeal, James F. Newport appeals the distric t court's orders disposing of his action against United States Arm y

1 Secretary Stone, and denying his motion filed un der Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We affirm.

Newport, a former member of the Army Reserve, instituted this action in an eff ort to compel the Army to investigate alleged incidents o f subvers ion and espionage directed against the Army (SAEDA). Newpor t asserted that the Arm y was obligated by its own regulation, AR 381-12, to process his SAEDA complaint. He also sought, as relevant on appeal, backpay for drill sessions he was ordered not to att end, and correction of his milita ry records to remove reported allegations of his unstable an d disruptive

### -2-

behavior. In four separate orders, the district court denied mandamu s relief, affirmed the decision of the Army Board for Correction of Military Record s (ABCMR) relating to Newport's request to expunge his militar y records and the Army's refusal to process his SAEDA report, grante d judgment in favor of the Army on Newport's remaining claims, and denie d postjudgment relief.

We agree w ith the district court that Newport did not state a cognizable claim that he was entitled to back-pay. See Banks v. Garrett , 901 F.2d 1084, 1086-87 (Fed. Cir.) (Naval reservist who performed no drill s not entitled to pay; reservist not entitled to compensation unless he is ordered to perform and actually performs work), cert. denied , 498 U.S. 821 (1990); Wardle v. Northwest Investment Co. , 830 F.2d 118, 122 (8th Cir

. 1987) (finding Eighth Circuit appellate jurisdic tion proper where claimant did not state cognizable claim and Little Tucker Act jurisdiction was thus not properly invoked).
As to the ABCMR's rulings, Newport has not shown the decision t o deny his request to expunge certain documents from hi s record was arbitrary and capricious. See Neal v. Secretary of Navy and C ommandant of Marine Corps , 639 F.2d 1029, 1037 (3rd Cir. 1981) (standard of review; strong presumptio n that personnel involved in decisionmaking process faithfully discharge d duties); Horn v. Schlesinger , 514 F.2d 549, 551 (8th Cir. 1975 ) (acknowledging and adopting traditional judicial reluctance to interfere wit h military establishment unless grave constitutional rights appea r imperiled). Assuming, without deciding, that Newport properly exhausted his administrative remedies concerning his objection to the Army' s inte rpretation of its SAEDA-reporting regulation, Newport has shown n o basis for requiring the Army to investigate that which he is required to report.

Last, w e find no abuse of discretion in the denial of postjudgmen t relief. See Sanders v. Clemco Indus. , 862 F.2d 161,

### -3-

169 (8th Cir. 1988) (standard of review).
The judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.