32 C.F.R. § 553.22

Exceptions to policies for interment, inurnment, or memorialization at Arlington National Cemetery

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) As a national military cemetery, eligibility standards for interment, inurnment, or memorialization are based on honorable military service. Exceptions to the eligibility standards for new graves are rarely granted. When granted, exceptions are for those persons who have made significant contributions that directly and substantially benefited the U.S. military.

(b) Requests for an exception to the interment or inurnment eligibility policies shall be considered only after the individual's death.

(c) Requests for an exception to the interment or inurnment eligibility policies shall be submitted to the Executive Director and shall include any documents required by the Executive Director.

(d) The primary next of kin is responsible for providing and certifying the authenticity of all documents and swearing to the accuracy of the accounting provided to support the request for exception to the interment or inurnment eligibility policies.

(e) Disapproved requests will be reconsidered only when the personal representative or next of kin submits new and substantive information not previously considered by the Secretary of the Army. Requests for reconsideration shall be submitted directly to the Executive Director. Requests for reconsideration not supported by new and substantive information will be denied by the Executive Director after review and advice from the Army General Counsel or his or her designee. The Executive Director shall notify the personal representative or next of kin of the decision of the reconsideration. The decision by the Secretary of the Army or the Executive Director, as the case may be, is final and not appealable.

(f) Under no circumstances, will exceptions to policies be considered or granted for those individuals prohibited from interment by virtue of § 553.20 or § 553.21.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1999–2015 · leading case: Rita Warren v. Fairfax Cnty., 196 F.3d 186 (4th Cir. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Rita Warren v. Fairfax Cnty., 196 F.3d 186 (4th Cir. 1999). · cites it 3× “, 32 C.F.R. § 553.22 (f), (g) (restricting picketing, orations, displaying of placards, distribution of handbills, solici *202 tation, and other forms of speech in the Arlington National Gemetery out of respect for the “honored dead”); Widmar v.”

United States v. Bronstein, 151 F. Supp. 3d 31 (D.D.C. 2015). “32 C.F.R. § 553.22 (f)(3). The Court - has found just one other use of the word “oration” in a federal regulation — 38 C.”

United States v. Saffle, 151 F. Supp. 3d 31 (D.D.C. 2015). “32 C.F.R. § 553.22 (f)(3). The Court has found just one other use of the word “oration” in a federal regulation—38 C.”

Warren v. Fairfax Cnty. (4th Cir. 1999). · cites it 3× “, 32 C.F.R. § 553.22 (f), (g) (restricting pick- eting, orations, displaying of placards, distribution of handbills, solici- tation, and other forms of speech in the Arlington National Cemetery out of respect for the "honored dead"); Widmar v.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.