Nevertheless "official conduct may have gone so far beyond any rational exercise of discretion as to call for mandamus even when the action is within the letter of the authority granted

Recently, however, a number of courts have indicated that even discretionary decisions may be set aside under the mandamus statute, 28 USC § 1361, if they fall outside the bounds of "any rational exercise of discretion."

Such a claim is one that in the words of the Administrative Procedure Act is "committed to agency discretion by law," 5 USC § 701 (a).

—through Judge Friendly, held that it must decline to review the military's refusal to grant a hardship exemption to a ready reservist ordered to report for active duty.

Although it is well established that federal courts will not overturn discretionary determinations made by the military within its jurisdiction

Minor procedures are usually accorded this treatment: the courts feel that, unless the result was arguably affected, the inconvenience arising from forcing the agency to begin again outweighs the benefit from requiring absolute adherence as a precondition to legal validity.

While the courts have often concluded, after a functional analysis of institutional factors, that the military action is unreviewable, they have repeatedly emphasized that a claim that self-imposed regulations or procedures have been violated stands on a footing different from other claims of error and illegality.

And the legislative history of $1361 makes it clear that ordinarily the courts are "not to direct or influence the exercise of discretion of the officer or agency in the making of the decision,"

[CITATION] Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys