32 C.F.R. § 723.1
General provisions
This part sets up procedures for correction of naval and marine records by the Secretary of the Navy acting through the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR or the Board) to remedy error or injustice. It describes how to apply for correction of naval and marine records and how the BCNR considers applications. It defines the Board's authority to act on applications. It directs collecting and maintaining information subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 authorized by 10 U.S.C. 1034 and 1552.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1969–2025 · leading case: Matthew H. Sawyer v. The United States, 930 F.2d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Matthew H. Sawyer v. The United States, 930 F.2d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “The BCNR, like the review boards, acts on behalf of the Secretary, see 32 C.F.R. § 723.1 (a) (1990), and under 10 U.”
McDonough v. Stackley, 245 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2017). “32 C.F.R. § 723.1 . A district court may review the decision of a military board of correction using “familiar principles of administrative law.”
Daugherty v. United States, 212 F. Supp. 2d 1279 (N.D. Okla. 2002). “§§ 1551 to 1554; and 32 C.F.R. §§ 723.1 to 723.11. 19 . See, e.”
Six v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 581 (Fed. Cl. 2007). “32 C.F.R. § 723.1 (2006); see also Dep’t of the Navy, Office of the Sec’y, Instruction 5420.”
Kolesa v. Lehman, 534 F. Supp. 590 (N.D.N.Y. 1982). “§ 1552 and 32 C.F.R. §§ 723.1 —.11, plaintiff brought this action on May 26, 1981 to prevent the defendant Secretary of the Navy from ordering plaintiff to active enlisted duty.”
Henry v. Dep't of the Navy, 755 F. Supp. 1442 (E.D. Ark. 1991). “See 32 C.F.R. § 723.1 et seq. (1988) (these were the regulations in effect during the time the BCNR reviewed plaintiff's application).”
O'NEIL v. Sec'y of Navy, 76 F. Supp. 2d 641 (W.D. Pa. 1999). “There is no requirement that petitioner should seek relief from the Board for Correction of Naval Records established under 32 C.F.R. § 723.1 . Jenkins v. Commandant, 303 F.”
Donahue v. United States, 33 Fed. Cl. 507 (Fed. Cl. 1995). “Plaintiff contends that the CPEB recommendation of 1989, upon which BCNR based its decision, erroneously analyzed the available medical evidence.”
Jenkins v. Commandant, First Naval Dist., 303 F. Supp. 1150 (D. Mass. 1969). “It is contended, however, that his application is premature, since he has not yet exhausted his available administrative remedies.”
Amato v. Chafee, 337 F. Supp. 1214 (D.D.C. 1972). “1 Regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Navy governing the operation of the BCNR are contained at 32 C.F.R. 723.1 et seq. The purpose of the BCNR is to determine the existence of error or injustice in military records, and to make recommendations for the correction of…”
Helferty v. United States, 101 Fed. Cl. 224 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “(1), § 2(b) (1997)); see also 32 C.F.R. § 723.1 (b) (same). The government elaborates that the Board acts on a written record, id.”
Byrd v. Dep't of Def. (D.D.C. 2024). “To this end, the Navy has established the Board for Correction of Naval Records (“the Board”), see 32 C.F.R. §§ 723.1 , 723.2(a), which considers applications from cur- rent and former members of the Navy to determine “the existence of error or injustice in the naval records,”…”
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.