10 U.S.C. § 1557

Timeliness standards for disposition of applications before Corrections Boards

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Ten-Month Clearance Percentage.—Of the applications received by a Corrections Board during a period specified in the following table, the percentage on which final action by the Corrections Board must be completed within 10 months of receipt (other than for those applications considered suitable for administrative correction) is as follows:

For applications received during—	The percentage on which final Correction Board action must be completed within 10 months of receipt is—
the period of fiscal years 2001 and 2002	50
the period of fiscal years 2003 and 2004	60
the period of fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007	70
the period of fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010	80
the period of any fiscal year after fiscal year 2010	90.

(b)Clearance Deadline for All Applications.—Final action by a Corrections Board on all applications received by the Corrections Board (other than those applications considered suitable for administrative correction) shall be completed within 18 months of receipt.(c)Waiver Authority.—The Secretary of the military department concerned may exclude an individual application from the timeliness standards prescribed in subsections (a) and (b) if the Secretary determines that the application warrants a longer period of consideration. The authority of the Secretary of a military department under this subsection may not be delegated.(d)Failure To Meet Timeliness Standards Not To Affect Any Individual Application.—Failure of a Corrections Board to meet the applicable timeliness standard for any period of time under subsection (a) or (b) does not confer any presumption or advantage with respect to consideration by the board of any application.(e)Reports on Failure To Meet Timeliness Standards.—The Secretary of the military department concerned shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report not later than June 1 following any fiscal year during which the Corrections Board of that Secretary’s military department was unable to meet the applicable timeliness standard for that fiscal year under subsections (a) and (b). The report shall specify the reasons why the standard could not be met and the corrective actions initiated to ensure compliance in the future. The report shall also specify the number of waivers granted under subsection (c) during that fiscal year.(f)Corrections Board Defined.—In this section, the term “Corrections Board” means—(1) with respect to the Department of the Army, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records;(2) with respect to the Department of the Navy, the Board for Correction of Naval Records; and(3) with respect to the Department of the Air Force, the Department of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records.(Added Pub. L. 105–261, div. A, title V, § 544(a), Oct. 17, 1998, 112 Stat. 2021; amended Pub. L. 106–65, div. A, title X, § 1067(1), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 774; Pub. L. 108–375, div. A, title X, § 1084(d)(12), Oct. 28, 2004, 118 Stat. 2062; Pub. L. 118–31, div. A, title XVII, § 1722(j)(2)(A), Dec. 22, 2023, 137 Stat. 673.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2023—Subsec. (f)(3). Pub. L. 118–31 inserted “the Department of” after “Air Force,”.

2004—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 108–375 substituted “Final” for “Effective October 1, 2002, final”.

1999—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 106–65 substituted “and the Committee on Armed Services” for “and the Committee on National Security”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesTermination of Reporting Requirements

For termination, effective Dec. 31, 2021, of provisions in subsec. (e) of this section requiring submittal of report to Congress, see section 1061 of Pub. L. 114–328, set out as a note under section 111 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1947–2025 · leading case: Lipsman v. Sec'y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lipsman v. Sec'y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). · cites it 7× “Neither Judicial Economy Nor the Doctrine of In Pari Materia Permit ABCMR Staff Members to Adjudicate Reconsideration Requests Next, the defendants contend that Congress’ concern over judicial economy as evidenced by 10 U.S.C. § 1557 indicates an intent that staff members,…”

Roe v. Shanahan, 359 F. Supp. 3d 382 (E.D. Va. 2019). “Finally, an appeal to the AFBCMR may take as long as 18 months, see 10 U.S.C. § 1557 (b), if not longer, see Pls.”

Lewis v. United States, 476 F. App'x 240 (Fed. Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “However, Lewis ignores 10 U.S.C. § 1557 (d), which states “[fjailure of a Corrections Board to meet the applicable timeliness standard for any period of time under subsection (a) or (b) does not confer any presumption or advantage with respect to consideration by the board of…”

Bigrow v. Hiatt, 70 F. Supp. 826 (M.D. Penn. 1947). “) Drunk *830 on Duty, article of war 85 and also 75 articles of war, [ 10 U.S.C.A. §§ 1557 , 1547].” The record shows that charge 2 covers a violation of the 75th Article of War.”

Cillie v. Esper (D. Conn. 2020). · cites it 4× “First, he argues that the ABCMR has constructively denied his applications because, under 10 U.S.C. § 1557 (b), “Final Action by a Corrections Board on all applications .”

Buholtz v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2023). · cites it 3× “Buholtz’s 21 applications for administrative relief in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 1557 . Section 1557(b) provides: 10 Clearance deadline for all applications.”

Buholtz v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2024). · cites it 2× “Buholtz asserts the ABCMR failed to timely adjudicate his 21 applications for administrative relief in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 1557 . Section 1557(b) provides: Clearance deadline for all applications.”

Borud v. Del Toro (D.D.C. 2025). “10 U.S.C. § 1557 . In other words, there is no risk of indefinite delay.”

Wallish v. United States Dep't of Def. (D.D.C. 2025). “10 U.S.C. § 1557 (a)–(b). Moreover, Defendant proposes that the parties file recurring joint status Page 5 of 6 reports for the court to monitor the progress of the remand proceedings.”

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.