appeal” where it only addressed the specific request made and failed to fully correct the injustice clearly in the record before it). Furthermore, the name of the Board— the Army Board for Correction of Military Records — speaks volumes. As the name suggests, the Board’s members have the duty to “[r]eview all applications that are properly before them to determine the existence of error or injustice.” 32 C.F.R. § 581.3(b)(4)(i) (emphasis added). The Secretary seeks to avoid this duty here by arguing to this court that Haselwander never requested the ABCMR to correct his Army records. This contention is groundless. First, because the argument was never raised with the District Court, it has been forfeited. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976) (<HOLDING>). Second, the Board’s decision rejecting the
holding that as a general rule this court will not consider an issue that was not raised below holding that it is the general rule  that a federal appellate court does not consider an issue hot passed upon below holding that an appellate court cannot consider an issue that was not preserved for appellate review holding that an appellate court has discretion to consider an issue not argued by the parties recognizing general rule that an appellate court cannot address claims that were not raised below