may testify and be cross-examined. Nonetheless, because the Board is seized with jurisdiction over Mr. Helferty’s claims, the salient question is the extent to which the court may cause the Board to have an evidentiary hearing be conducted. The government in its reply emphasizes that, by statute, corrections to military records “shall be made under procedures established by the Secretary [concerned.” Def.’s Reply at 2 (quoting 10 U.S.C. § 1552(a)(3)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The government then points to the discretionary nature of the procedures specified in 32 C.F.R. § 723.4(a) relating to whether a personal appearance should be granted in connection with adjudication of an application for relief. Id. at 2-3 (citing Flute v. United States, 535 F.2d 624, 628 (Ct.Cl.1976) (<HOLDING>); Renicker v. United States, 17 Cl.Ct. 611, 617
holding that we ordinarily review jury instruction challenges for correction of errors at law holding that both as to real and personal property a board of review cannot arbitrarily increase the valuation of the assessor without proof being furnished holding that as to the correction of an erroneous application of law a nondeferential standard of review applies holding that the air force board for correction of military records had not acted arbitrarily in denying an application for review of a courtmartial conviction without a hearing holding that judicial review of decisions of military correction boards is review of the administrative record conducted under the administrative procedure act