32 C.F.R. § 723.2

Establishment, function and jurisdiction of the Board

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

(a) Establishment and composition. Under 10 U.S.C. 1034 and 1552, the Board for Correction of Naval Records is established by the Secretary of the Navy. The Board consists of civilians of the executive part of the Department of the Navy in such number, not less than three, as may be appointed by the Secretary and who shall serve at the pleasure of the Secretary. Three members present shall constitute a quorum of the Board. The Secretary of the Navy will designate one member as Chair. In the absence or incapacity of the Chair, an Acting Chair chosen by the Executive Director shall act as Chair for all purposes.

(b) Function. The Board is not an investigative body. Its function is to consider applications properly before it for the purpose of determining the existence of error or injustice in the naval records of current and former members of the Navy and Marine Corps, to make recommendations to the Secretary or to take corrective action on the Secretary's behalf when authorized.

(c) Jurisdiction. The Board shall have jurisdiction to review and determine all matters properly brought before it, consistent with existing law.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 64 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Becky Roberts v. United States, 741 F.3d 152 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Becky Roberts v. United States, 741 F.3d 152 (D.C. Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “32 C.F.R. § 723.2 (b). Roberts claimed her June 1997 fitness report was erroneous because, among other reasons, Captain Bentz gave her a lower recommendation for promotion than the recommendation corresponding to her trait average in ONI Instruction 1610.”

Schmidt v. Spencer, 319 F. Supp. 3d 386 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “" 32 C.F.R. § 723.2 (b). Also, the Board for Correction may reconsider its prior decisions in certain narrow circumstances: "After final adjudication, further consideration will be granted only upon presentation by the applicant of new and material evidence or other matter not…”

Peoples v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 553 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “§ 1552 (2000) and 32 C.F.R. § 723.2 (b) (2000), which allow for the correction of military records “to correct an error or remove an injustice.”

Lebrun v. England, 212 F. Supp. 2d 5 (D.D.C. 2002). · cites it 2× “at 31 (citing 32 C.F.R. §§ 723.2 (b), 723.6(c)). In its majority opinion, the BCNR relied upon “the presumption that [Academy] officials performed their duties in a regular and proper manner, and that [petitioner's resignation was submitted voluntarily and of his own free will.”

Jeffry Schmidt v. United States, 749 F.3d 1064 (D.C. Cir. 2014). “§ 3004 (b), the BCNR handles records-correction requests from current and former members of the Marine Corps, see 32 C.F.R. § 723.2 (b). 2 . The applicable regulation provides, in relevant part: All requests for further consideration will be initially screened by the Executive…”

Doyon v. United States, 58 F.4th 1235 (Fed. Cir. 2023). “§ 1552(a)(1); see also 32 C.F.R. § 723.2 (establishing the BCNR).”

William Havens v, Raymond Edwin Mabus, Jr., Sec'y of the Navy Chairman, Bd. for Corr. of Naval Records, 759 F.3d 91 (D.C. Cir. 2014). “§ 1552 (a)(1); the Secretary has delegated this function to the BCNR, see 32 C.F.R. §§ 723.2 (b), 723.6(e). 7 .Notwithstanding the Navy’s determination that Havens was Physically Qualified for service in the Selected Reserve from 1997 to 2000, the Department of Veterans Affairs…”

Boyer v. United States, 81 Fed. Cl. 188 (Fed. Cl. 2008). · cites it 2× “2d 1383, 1387 (1975)); see also 32 C.F.R. § 723.2 (b) (2003) (“[The board’s] function is to consider applications properly before it for the purpose of determining the existence of error or injustice in the naval records of current and former members of the Navy and Marine…”

Brezler v. Mills, 220 F. Supp. 3d 303 (E.D.N.Y 2016). “” 32 C.F.R. § 723.2 .- Neither the language of the governing statute nor the applicable rule requires that plaintiff appeal the Assistant Secretary’s endorsement to the BCNR prior to seeking judicial review.”

Van Cleave v. United States, 70 Fed. Cl. 674 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “The Board’s “function is to consider applications properly before it for the purpose of determining the existence of error or injustice in the naval records of current and former members of the Navy ____”32 C.F.R. § 723.2(b). The Board must explain its reasons for denying an…”

Reilly v. Sec'y of the Navy, 12 F. Supp. 3d 125 (D.D.C. 2014). · cites it 2× “32 C.F.R. § 723.2 (b) (2013). The regulations further provide that an application for correction may be denied if the Board “determines that the evidence of record fails to demonstrate the existence of probable material error” and that, in making this determination, “the Board…”

Kindred v. United States, 41 Fed. Cl. 106 (Fed. Cl. 1998). · cites it 3× “” 32 C.F.R. § 723.2 (b) (1993). The BCNR will “determine whether to authorize a hearing, recommend that records be corrected without a hearing, or to deny the application without a hearing.”

Show all 64 citing cases →

— 32 C.F.R. § 723.2(b) — 3 cases

Becky Roberts v. United States, 741 F.3d 152 (D.C. Cir. 2014). “32 C.F.R. § 723.2 (b). Roberts claimed her June 1997 fitness report was erroneous because, among other reasons, Captain Bentz gave her a lower recommendation for promotion than the recommendation corresponding to her trait average in ONI Instruction 1610.”

Reilly v. Sec'y of the Navy, 12 F. Supp. 3d 125 (D.D.C. 2014). “32 C.F.R. § 723.2 (b) (2013). The regulations further provide that an application for correction may be denied if the Board “determines that the evidence of record fails to demonstrate the existence of probable material error” and that, in making this determination, “the Board…”

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.