After final adjudication, further consideration will be granted only upon presentation by the applicant of new and material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board. New evidence is defined as evidence not previously considered by the Board and not reasonably available to the applicant at the time of the previous application. Evidence is material if it is likely to have a substantial effect on the outcome. All requests for further consideration will be initially screened by the Executive Director of the Board to determine whether new and material evidence or other matter (including, but not limited to, any factual allegations or arguments why the relief should be granted) has been submitted by the applicant. If such evidence or other matter has been submitted, the request shall be forwarded to the Board for a decision. If no such evidence or other matter has been submitted, the applicant will be informed that his/her request was not considered by the Board because it did not contain new and material evidence or other matter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
27
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1961–2026 · leading case:
Stewart v. Stackley, 251 F. Supp. 3d 138 (D.D.C. 2017).
Stewart v. Stackley, 251 F. Supp. 3d 138 (D.D.C. 2017).
· cites it 3× “See 32 C.F.R. § 723.9 . “[Farther consideration will be granted only upon presentation by the applicant óf new and material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board.”
Schmidt v. United States, 89 Fed. Cl. 111 (Fed. Cl. 2009).
· cites it 3× “See 32 C.F.R. § 723.9 (2009) (codifying section 9 of the Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.”
Schmidt v. Spencer, 319 F. Supp. 3d 386 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
· cites it 2× “3d at 936 ; see also 32 C.F.R. § 723.9 . The Board for Correction denied Schmidt's request for reconsideration because the request was not timely filed and was not accompanied by new material evidence.”
Remmie v. Mabus, 898 F. Supp. 2d 108 (D.D.C. 2012).
· cites it 2× “” 32 C.F.R. § 723.9 . What is missing is why the Board believed that these matters had been previously considered and, more important, why the evidence and other matters in Plaintiffs petition were not deemed sufficiently new and material to warrant reconsideration.”
Jeffry Schmidt v. United States, 749 F.3d 1064 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
“32 C.F.R. § 723.9 (2013). 3 . This is particularly so given the response of Schmidt's counsel to these issues during oral argument.”
Lewis v. Sec'y of the Navy, 195 F. Supp. 3d 277 (D.D.C. 2016).
· cites it 8× “32 C.F.R. § 723.9 . B. Factual and Procedural History In 1970, the plaintiff, then an enlisted member of the United States Marine Corps, was found guilty by a general court-martial “of assault with a deadly weapon and multiple specifications of disrespect, striking a…”
Lewis v. Sec'y of the Navy, 892 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2012).
· cites it 2× “*4 32 C.F.R. § 723.9 (2006) provides that the Board will review a petition for “further consideration .”
Prochazka v. United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 481 (Fed. Cl. 2009).
· cites it 2× “AR at 28 (citing 32 C.F.R. § 723.9 ). 17 In addition, Plaintiff was advised that he had “exhausted the administrative remedies available to [him] at the BCNR and [Plaintiff was] free to pursue the matter in a court of competent jurisdiction.”
Walter Jackson, Jr. v. Raymond Mabus, Jr., 808 F.3d 933 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
“B As to the denial of Jackson’s request for reconsideration, the Board considered that request under 32 C.F.R. § 723.9 . That regulation provides that the Board will consider requests for reconsideration only if they contain “new and material evidence or other matter not…”
Junius Baugh v. Sec'y Navy, 504 F. App'x 127 (3rd Cir. 2012).
· cites it 4× “ll, we hold that, under the unique circumstances here, Assistant Secretary Becraft had authority under 32 C.F.R. § 723.9 to reconsider Rostker’s order.”
Jackson v. Mabus, 56 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2014).
· cites it 2× “32 C.F.R. § 723.9 . New evidence is “evidence not previously considered by the Board and not reasonably available to the applicant at the time of the previous application.”
Six v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 581 (Fed. Cl. 2007).
· cites it 2× “at 676 (citing 32 C.F.R. § 723.9 (2005)). Because the Executive Director found that Dr.”
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.