Under 50 U.S.C. App. 582, in order to determine the military status of a Respondent, the Petitioner is required to apply for information and the Department of Defense must issue a statement as to the military service. A search through the website is appropriate if the Petitioner makes the appropriate application to the Defense Manpower Data Center with a letter on the firm or agency letterhead for the Defense Manpower Data Center military verification web application and request entity for the search. There are specific requirements that must be met and information that must be provided before a web search is authorized and completed on the Defense Manpower Data Center. None of these procedures were used or proved by the Petitioner.
The issue before the Court is not whether the Respondent is in the military since there is ample proof in the record from the commencement of this proceeding and during this hearing that she is in the military (emphasis added). The core issue is whether the eviction was proper and executed in good faith. The Respondent was under the belief that there was continuing negotiation to repurchase the premises as agreed in the January 8 stipulation, phone conversations with Petitioner's Counsel and subsequent negotiations and stipulations of settlement. She was justifiably led to rely on those negotiations and not to look for an alternative location. Her last inquiry to the Petitioner's attorney was in May 2004. At no time was she told that HUD declined her offer to repurchase the premises. In addition, she became sick and was hospitalized. Because of her reliance on the agreement and her being hospitalized, she did not vacate on April 30. There is no proof that the Respondent's request for a buyout price was communicated to HUD. If it was, there