it may a.". p.of .. u"J iust.'; z8 U S C $ l49l(a)(2); see .also .,may order the remand of appropriate matters to an administrative or executive body or court offrcial.").
Inthiscase,PlaintiffdidnotfirstsubmitaclaimofinvoluntarydischargetotheAirForce Plaintiff s Board for Correction ofMilitlf Re-.at gefeCUR'). Therefore, the court remandsForce invoiuntary discharge lo ttre ersbl\an to determine whether: (1) the Air either "tairn plaintiff by informing her that either she was required to accept .ir."pr"r.*"a or ieceived reassignment or separate; (2) plaintiff r;ued on a misrepresentation or deceptive statement by the officer to.act on the Air Force to her detriment; -a i:l the failure either of the lead assignments Novemberl6,20l6separation,.q,,"sto'tt'eWingCommander'sexerciseofdiscretioninrefusing 36-2110, $ 2.30'1 1 (Sept' 22' to endorse the February tz,'iOti r"qr"r, *u, u-uiolutiott ofAFI position of 200g), particularly since .q,i. io."" rehired plaintiff as a civilian in the same tt. t"rfontiUifity. See Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U S C $ 706(2XA)'
Iv. CONCLUSION.
Forthesereasons,theGovernment'sJune2l,20l8MotionToDismissisgrantedinpart is and denied in part.All other motions are denied as moot. The involuntary discharge claim remandedforconsiderationtotheAFBCMR.SeeRFCF52.2'TheGovernmentisdirectedto report to the court nin.iy days on the sttu:- 9I the remand proceedings -- See RCFC "lr"ry lzi.ziuxrl