Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06699-01
Original file (06699-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E   NAVY 

B O A R D   F O R   C O R R E C T I O N   O F   N A V A L   R E C O R D S  

2  N A V Y A N N E X  

W A S H I N G T O N   D C   2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0  

TRG 
Docket No:  6699-01 
17 April 2002 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your 
naval record pursuant  to the provisions of Title 10 of the United 
States Code, section 1552. 

A  three-member panel  of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, 
sitting in executive session, considered your application on 
16 April  2002.  Your allegations of error and injustice were 
reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and 
procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board.  Documentary 
material  considered by  the Board consisted of your application, 
together with all material  submitted in support thereof, your naval 
record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.  In 
addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by 
the Chief of Naval Operations, a  copy of which  is enclosed. 

After  careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, 
the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to 
establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  In 
this connection the Board substantially concurred with  the comments 
contained in the advisory opinion. 

Accordingly, your application has been denied.  The names and votes 
of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that 
favorable action cannot be taken.  You are entitled to have the 
Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material 
evidence or other matter not previously considered by  the Board. In 
this regard, it is important to keep in mind  that a presumption of 
regularity attaches to all official records.  Consequently, when 
applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden  is 
on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material 
error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 

W.  DEAN PFEIFFER 
Executive Director 

Enclosure 

D E P A R T M E N T  OF  T H E   NAVY 

O F F I C E   O F   T H E   C H I E F   O F   NAVAL  O P E R A T I O N S  

2 0 0 0   NAVY  P E N T A G O N  

W A S H I N G T O N .   D.C. 2 0 3 5 0 - 2 0 0 0  

IN  R E P L Y   R E F E R   TO 

Ser 09131 3i2US15365 
15 February 2002 

l~-l-onl : 
7 3 )  . 

Subj : 

Chiei of  Naval  Oper dtlons  (N09B13) 
ih,a I  r~mdn. Hoard  for. Correct ion of Nava 1  14ecords 
1:EC)UFST  FOli  COMMENTS AN,) RI-COMMENDATIONS 1 N THE CASF: OF  PHMIC Tdl[PIIIYb 
USNII, C 

lief: 

(a) RCNK  ltr AEG:jdh Llocket  No:  6699-01 of  31  Ilec  01 
( b )  I n  u.s C .  15s: 

( 1 )  LWNH  File 
( 2 )  Service Record Medica 1  Hecor-d 

As  r-equested by  reference  ( a )  anci  in dccorddnce with  reference  ( b ) ,  the c'hjef of 

1 
N.;' .:.!  in the :i- j  1.:.;1 ;l;-  a-;.-ir!  .-r:.  It is not one of the medals 
created for sale by private vendors  in commemoration of the 5oth Anniversary  of World 
War  11.  To obtain this medal, Mr. 

De'Barquement  et Bataille de Normandle 4)* 944, Abbaye-dux-Dames, place Mathilde, BP 311- 

should write directly to the Association 

14015 Caen Cedez France.  He must  provide proof  of his service/participation in the 
Normandy  campaign. From information provided by Mr. 
Battle of Normandy Foundation, an estimated 40,000 
there are no plans to produce more.  Requests for the medals are being handled on the 
first come, first service basis. 

Executive Director, 
als were minted and 

6 .   Enclosures  (1) and  (2) are returned. 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 07733-00

    Original file (07733-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. A review of his service and medical records, and the records at this Headquarters fails to reveal any documentation...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07438-01

    Original file (07438-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF T H E NAVY T JR Docket No: 7483-01 24 April 2002 From : To : Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records Secretary of the Navy 2 N A V Y A N N E X W A S H I N G T O N D C 2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0 B O A R D F O R C O R R E C T I O N O F N A V A L R E C O R D S REVIEW OF NAVAL OF RECORD - (a) 10 U.S.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that the characterization of her...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04163-01

    Original file (04163-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    However, given the circumstances, especially his fine performance of duty, the Board concludes that an RE-1 reenlistment code should be assigned in this case as an exception to policy. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that on 24 July 2000 he was assigned an RE-1 reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code now of record. That this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner's naval record.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03355-99

    Original file (03355-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. However, petitioner d i ; l not initia1l.y reenlist under the STAR program, because at the ti!r!,: of r=.enlistrnent, the STS rate was not. T h i s i s a n a d v i s o r y memorandum t o r e f e r e n c e ( a ) f o r t h e u s e by t h e Board f o r C o r r e c t i o n of Naval Records ( P N R ) o n p .

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08338-01

    Original file (08338-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 April 2002. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. A recruit performance record entry reflects that on 13 March 1998, you failed battle stations for the third time.

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | FD2006-00017

    Original file (FD2006-00017.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Information was extracted from the Legal Review) LOR, LOR, LOC, 21 JAN 04 - 08 SEP 03 - 22 FEB 02 - LOR, LOR, LOR, LOC, LOC, 05 NOV 01 - 21 AUG 01 - 21 AUG 01 - 18 JUN 01 - 14 FEB 01 - Financial irresponsibility. On 5 Jan 04, an investigation revealed L11dAnn i ~&shunurabiy fdcd iv pay iis Military Star Card debt, for which he wj3 given a Lettor 6Fiiphand (LOR), dated 2 1 Jan 04, which was filed in his Personnel Information File (PIF). Direct that the respondent bo discharged from the Air...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06757-01

    Original file (06757-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material consitleretl by the Boartl consisted of your application, together with all ~ilaterial suh~nittctl in support thereat', your niiviil record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Boartl considered the advisory I3 Noveliilw 2001. a copy of After careful and conscientioirs consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probahle material error or In this connection,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04637-01

    Original file (04637-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you were unfit for duty at the time of your discharge, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. 0 2 M A Y 1 9 9 6 DATE MEMBER'S STATEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING: I UNDERSTAND THAT THE RECOMMENDED F I N D I N G OF F I T FOR DUTY I S S U B J E C T...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 07754-00

    Original file (07754-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion" furnished by the Awards and Special Projects Branch in the Office of the Chief of Na-1 February 2002, a copy of which is attached Operations (OP09B13), dated 19 After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. D.C. 20350-2000 I N R E P L Y R E F E R TO Ser 09B 131A2U5 1548 1 19 February...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00839-02

    Original file (00839-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E NAVY BOARD F O R C O R R E C T I O N OF NAVAL R E C O R D S 2 NAVY ANNEX W A S H I N G T O N D C 2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0 BJG Docket No: 839-02 25 February 2002 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD - - Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. As indicated in enclosure (2), the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) has directed the requested correction of Petitioner's...