33 C.F.R. § 52.64

Final action

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

(a) The Board, provided that it acts unanimously, may take final action on behalf of the Secretary, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 1552, as follows:

(1) The Board may deny an application for the correction of military records.

(2) Unless the Coast Guard, in submitting its views pursuant to § 52.42(b), identifies and describes a significant issue of Coast Guard policy challenged in the application, the Board may approve an application for the correction of military records in any of the following categories:

(i) An application to correct an enlistment or reenlistment contract or agreement to extend an enlistment for the purpose of effecting or increasing entitlement to a Selective Reenlistment Bonus;

(ii) An application to modify an election to participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan;

(iii) An application to change a reenlistment eligibility code;

(iv) An application to correct the character of, or reason for, a discharge or separation; or

(v) An application to receive a medal or award.

(3) The Board may approve any application for correction of military records not included in one of the categories in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, if the Coast Guard recommends the same or substantially same relief as that requested by the applicant.

(b) Except in cases where the Board takes final action under paragraph (a) of this section, the Board shall forward the record of its proceedings to the Secretary, who may approve, disapprove, or concur in the decision of the Board or the minority report, if any, either in whole or in part, and amend the order of the Board accordingly, or return the case to the Board for additional consideration. After taking final action, the Secretary shall send any such statement and the record of proceedings to the Board for disposition.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1992–2005 · leading case: Michael Strickland v. United States, 423 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Michael Strickland v. United States, 423 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “5 (Secretary of the Air Force); 33 C.F.R. § 52.64 (b) (Secretary of Homeland Security for the Coast Guard).”

Christine A. Lozowski v. Norman Y. Mineta, Sec'y of Transp., 292 F.3d 840 (D.C. Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “” Pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.64 (b), the decision of the Board serves as the decision of the Secretary only if the Board is unanimous.”

Hyman G. Gottlieb v. Federico F. Pena, Sec'y of Transp., Robert L. Gazlay v. Federico F. Pena, Sec'y of Transp., 41 F.3d 730 (D.C. Cir. 1994). · cites it 2× “To the extent that the Secretary has not authorized the Board to exercise final authority, see 33 C.F.R. 52.64 (1993), the Secretary has delegated the authority to approve or disapprove the Board's recommended decisions to the Deputy General Counsel.”

Vierrether v. United States, 27 Fed. Cl. 357 (Fed. Cl. 1992). “33 C.F.R. § 52.64 (1991). And though the BCMR’s decision was entitled “final decision," its label is not conclusive in light of the fact that a previous BCMR decision in this case, labeled a "final decision,” was characterized by the BCMR chairman as a "recommended decision.”

Gazlay v. Busey, 819 F. Supp. 29 (D.D.C. 1993). “35-15 (b) (1990); 33 C.F.R. § 52.64 (a)(1) (1991). BCMR decisions recommending relief are forwarded to the Deputy General Counsel for approval, disapproval, or return to the BCMR for additional consideration.”

Strickland v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2005). “5 (Secretary of the Air Force); 33 C.F.R. § 52.64 (b) (Secretary of Homeland Security for the Coast Guard).”

— 33 C.F.R. § 52.64(a) — 1 case

Hyman G. Gottlieb v. Federico F. Pena, Sec'y of Transp., Robert L. Gazlay v. Federico F. Pena, Sec'y of Transp., 41 F.3d 730 (D.C. Cir. 1994). “To the extent that the Secretary has not authorized the Board to exercise final authority, see 33 C.F.R. 52.64 (1993), the Secretary has delegated the authority to approve or disapprove the Board's recommended decisions to the Deputy General Counsel.”

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.