Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 09566-03
Original file (09566-03.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

                                    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                             2 NAVY ANNEX
                                             WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


                                                                                          HD
Docket No. 09566-03
2 August 2004




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 29 July 2004. 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 opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 10 and 19 February and 28 April 2004 with enclosures, copies of which are attached. The Board also considered your undated letter.

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 opinions. The Board was unable to find you incorrectly tested positive for marijuana. The Board found no basis to correct your record to show you were discharged in the rate of Mt41 (pay grade E-6) rather than MM2 (pay grade E-5). In view of the above, 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,


(

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03701-11

    Original file (03701-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board also considered your counsel’s letters dated 11 November 2010 and 22 April 2011 with enclosure. Since the Board still found no defect in your fitness report record, it had no basis to recommend your advancement to either pay grade E-8 or E-9,. In view of the above, the Board again voted to deny relief.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09126-10

    Original file (09126-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested promotion to master gunnery sergeant (pay grade E-9}) from the Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 Reserve Master Gunnery Sergeant Selection 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, and the Board’s file on your prior case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 09576-03

    Original file (09576-03.rtf) 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. HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS MANPOWER ANDRESERVE AFFAIRS I)EPARTMENT HARRY LEE HALL, 17 LEJEUNE ROAD...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 05938-05

    Original file (05938-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board also considered your letter dated 30 November 2006 with attachments.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. This responds to your request (enclosure (1)) for comments and recommendation on subject Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) petition. is have reviewed enclosure (1) and recommend applicant’s petition be denied.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07347-08

    Original file (07347-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 January 2009. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 10599 12

    Original file (10599 12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 March 2013. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04334-10

    Original file (04334-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof and applicable statutes, regulations and policies, In addition, the Roard considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 24 May 2010 with attachments, a copy of which is attached. After...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10295-07

    Original file (10295-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    When informed of the recommendation, you waived the right to present your case to an administrative discharge board. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) dated 31 January 2008 with enclosures and 24 March 2008, copies of which are attached. However, the Board found enclosure (1) to the advisory opinion dated 31 January 2008 established a valid basis for your commanding officer's (CO's) loss of confidence in your ability to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04696-07

    Original file (04696-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    04696-0721 September 2007 Dear 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 20 September 2007. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 25 July 2007, a copy of which is attached. His date of rank...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01648-10

    Original file (01648-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) has purged your record of all reference to your GCM. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by NPC dated 13 September 2010 with enclosure and 15 October 2010 with reference (c), copies of which are attached. 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.