32 C.F.R. § 865.1
Setup of the Board
The AFBCMR operates within the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force according to 10 U.S.C. 1552. The Board consists of civilians in the executive part of the Department of the Air Force who are appointed and serve at the pleasure of the Secretary of the Air Force. Three members constitute a quorum of the Board.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case: Dibble v. Fenimore, 545 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 2008).
Dibble v. Fenimore, 545 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 2008). “§ 1552 (a)(1); 32 C.F.R. §§ 865.1 , 865.2(a). 5 Thus, it has limited power and *216 interferes only minimally with the cohesiveness and efficiency of existing military hierarchies and operations.”
Strang v. Marsh, 602 F. Supp. 1565 (D.R.I. 1985). “(1984) (Army DRB); 32 C.F.R. § 865.1 , Subpart B, et seq. (1983) (Air Force DRB); 32 C.”
State, Dep't of Military & Vets. Affairs v. Bowen, 953 P.2d 888 (Alaska 1998). “§ 1552 and 32 C.F.R. § 865.1 et seq. The State asserts that the AFBCMR is available, upon application by a member of the National Guard, to review a nonretention decision on a claim that it was the result of error or injustice and to correct the member’s records and reinstate…”
Charles W. Bard v. Robert C. Seamans, Sec'y of the Air Force, & Major Gen. Alton D. Slay, Commanding Gen., Lowry Air Force Base, 507 F.2d 765 (10th Cir. 1974). “8 Although Bard has made these previous administrative appeals, 9 he has failed to avail himself of the administrative machinery specifically provided by Congress for the purpose of reviewing and correcting military discharges.”
Robert M. Owings v. Sec'y of the United States Air Force (Safos), 447 F.2d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 1971). “32 C.F.R. § 865.1 et seq. (1971). 24 . The Department of the Air Force regulations currently applicable to the “Air Force Board for the Correction of Military Records,” with respect to applications for the correction of military records, provide: During the course of review of…”
Rew v. Ward, 402 F. Supp. 331 (D.N.M. 1975). “31-3 (October 21, 1970, as amended), and 32 C.F.R. §§ 865.1 to 865.9 (1974), before suing in the district courts.”
Mansfield v. Orr, 545 F. Supp. 118 (D. Maryland 1982). “§ 1552 , 32 C.F.R. § 865.1 et seq. Plaintiff urges that the exhaustion of remedies doctrine should be mollified in this instance inasmuch as he would be required to report for active duty before the time the Board issues a decision.”
Lonchyna v. Brown, 491 F. Supp. 1352 (N.D. Ill. 1980). “Since the plaintiff has failed to persuade this court of the likelihood of prevailing on his claim that the contract and order are unenforceable he is not entitled to a preliminary injunction pending the administrative proceedings before the Air Force Board for Correction of…”
Bailey v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019). “32 C.F.R. §§ 865.1 , 865.4(c). In an action before the AFBCMR, the burden is on the applicant to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of an error or injustice.”
Villarreal-Dancy v. United States Dep't of the Air Force (D.D.C. 2021). “Under the Appointments Clause, the government’s principal officers must be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, while inferior officers may be appointed by the President alone, the head of an executive department, or a court. U.S. Const. Art. II,…”
Bader v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2022). “” 32 C.F.R. § 865.1 . Members of the Air Force applying for correction of their records have the “burden of providing sufficient evidence of material error or injustice” before the Board.”
Villarreal-Dancy v. United States Dep't of the Air Force (D.D.C. 2022). “” 32 C.F.R. § 865.1 . And it is consistent with the “norm” in the executive branch of government that “principal officers .”
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.