Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01279-06
Original file (01279-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

CRS
Docket No: 1279-06
18 July 2007

 

 

Dear qyniiiienpinnzs:

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
deceased father’s 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 18 July 2007. 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 father’s naval record and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the
advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Board of Decorations and
Medals dated 2 July 2007, a copy of which is attached.

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,

Executive Di r

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11943-10

    Original file (11943-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    BA three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your | application for your father on 9 November 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your father’s 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09699-07

    Original file (09699-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 2008. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late father's naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when japplying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden jis on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02095-06

    Original file (02095-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late father’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.Your father reenlisted in the Navy on 26 January 1965 after nearly 10 years of prior...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00200-07

    Original file (00200-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 July 2007. 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 | CY2008 | 03985-08

    Original file (03985-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your father’s naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The Board concluded that a bad conduct discharge was appropriate in your father’s case in view of his repeated acts of misconduct, and that you have not demonstrated that it would be in the interest of justice to upgrade the discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02706-06

    Original file (02706-06.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. In addition, the Board considered an advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps, a copy of which is enclosed. 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 | CY2007 | 08098-07

    Original file (08098-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late father’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 18 March 1946 he was convicted by civil authorities of robbery and sentenced to an unspecified period of confinement. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05924-06

    Original file (05924-06.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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by NPC memo 1160 Ser 4811/028 dated 18 Jan 07, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9807447

    Original file (NC9807447.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 June 1999. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the case summary prepared in connection with the Board's review of your late father case in 1950 and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03929-07

    Original file (03929-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 2008. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 18 July 2007, a copy of which is 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.