Review to comment upon it, is clear evidence that the substituted action was recognized for what it was, a nullity. Because the alleged error should have been readily apparent at the time the Board of Review considered this case, it does not now merit coram nobis relief. Even assuming arguendo that the petitioner had demonstrated a fundamental error not readily apparent at the time, three other reasons exist not to grant him relief. First, the writ of coram nobis is not available “where other authorized means of appeal or administrative review exist.” Ross, 43 M.J. at 771. In this case, petitioner could have applied for a correction of his record with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR). 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (1994); see also Baxter v. Claytor, 652 F.2d 181, 185 (D.C.Cir.l981)(<HOLDING>); Ballenger v. Marsh, 708 F.2d 349, 350 (8th
holding that the power to produce a change in a given legal relation may exist irrespective of the consent or knowledge either of the one subject to it or of the one holding it recognizing that in the united states it has been held that a court has the inherent power to change venue without reliance on constitutional or statutory authority when necessary to assure a fair trial holding that a change of venue has no affect on the applicable state law and that change of venue is but a change of courtrooms holding that where the appellant has failed to demonstrate error the court is not required to search the record for an error holding that bcnr has the power to remove all traces of an invalid court martial from a servicemans record and to change a dishonorable discharge into an honorable one