(a) The Board may reconsider an application if the applicant submits newly discovered relevant evidence that was not reasonably available when the application was previously considered. The Executive Director or Team Chiefs will screen each request for reconsideration to determine whether it contains new evidence. New arguments about, or analysis of, evidence already considered, and additional statements which are cumulative to those already in the record of proceedings will not be considered new evidence.
(b) If the request contains new evidence, the Executive Director or his/her designee will refer it to a panel of the Board for a decision. The Board will decide the relevance and weight of any new evidence, whether it was reasonably available to the applicant when the application was previously considered, and whether it was submitted in a timely manner. The Board may deny reconsideration if the request does not meet the criteria for reconsideration. Otherwise the Board will reconsider the application and decide the case either on timeliness or merit as appropriate.
(c) If the request does not contain new evidence, the Executive Director or his/her designee will return it to the applicant without referral to the Board.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1975–2022 · leading case:
King v. United States, 65 Fed. Cl. 385 (Fed. Cl. 2005).
King v. United States, 65 Fed. Cl. 385 (Fed. Cl. 2005).
· cites it 4× “Was the Board’s reconsideration arbitrary or unsupported by substantial evidence? The Government also argues that the AFBCMR’s reconsideration was proper because the Board had the authority to reconsider its initial determination under 32 C.F.R. § 865.6 (2004). Def.’s Mot. at…”
Coon v. United States, 30 Fed. Cl. 531 (Fed. Cl. 1994).
“32 C.F.R. § 865.6 . . Section 2501 provides, in pertinent parts, as follows: Eveiy claim of which the United States Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction shall be barred unless the petition thereon is filed within six year after such claim first accrues.”
Jamison v. Stetson, 471 F. Supp. 48 (N.D.N.Y. 1978).
“There is no dispute on the record as to the plaintiff’s exhaustion of remedies prior to filing the AFBCMR application (see 32 C.F.R. § 865.6 ); nor is their any dispute that the AFBCMR is the proper administrative forum for the type of relief sought by the plaintiff.”
Rew v. Ward, 402 F. Supp. 331 (D.N.M. 1975).
“7; 32 C.F. R. § 865.6 (1974). Presumably any bar to reenlistment would be removed in the event the BCMR corrects a serviceman’s military records.”
Williams v. Kendall (D. Maryland 2022).
“” 32 C.F.R. § 865.6 (a). An AFBCMR decision constitutes a final agency action.”
Charles Lee v. Michael Wynne, 384 F. App'x 431 (5th Cir. 2010).
“32 C.F.R. § 865.6 . The letter merely states that the time sheet at issue is correct.”
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.