DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 06339-06
20 July 2007
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records
reviewed your request on 19 July 2007. It also reviewed an
advisory opinion from the Judge Advocate General dated 12 October
2006, and your rebuttal thereto.
The Board concluded that your request was not accompanied by new
material evidence or other matter as those terms are defined in
Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.193, enclosure (1)
Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, section
9, Reconsideration. Accordingly, the Board determined that
further review of your case is not warranted, and it denied your
request for reconsideration of your application.
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PF
Executive D2
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04362-07
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your current application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board’s file on your priorcase, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated12June 2007, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02719-07
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:2719-0725 June 2007This is in reference to your letter dated 14 March 2007 with enclosures requesting correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.You requested that the fitness report for 17 August to 31 December 2004 be modified by changing section I (reporting senior (RS) comments) to reflect “Promote at soonest...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10207-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2008. 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. 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 | CY2014 | NR0260 14
In May 2007, you requested a reconsideration of that decision. Again, your request was denied on 22 July 2010, based on that fact that no new or material evidence was presented. On 27 September 2013, you have submitted yet another request for reconsideration and you still have not provided any new or material evidence to warrant a change to your record.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11043-07
Your previous case, docket number 11161-06, was denied on 19 January 2007. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 October 2008. 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 | 06109-07
Your previous case, docket number 3328-06, was denied on 26 October 2006, A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 December 2008. The Board found the mark in section A, item 7.b (“Recommended for Promotion - No”) of the contested fitness report was properly based on your noncompliance with physical standards, not your medical condition. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03848-06
You now request that this section K be modified, in accordance with the RO’s letter dated 15 February 2006, to reflect that the RO had “insufficient” observation to assess your performance.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 August 2007. The petitioner offers an advocacy letter from the reviewing officer which requests that the report now be marked “insufficient observation” vice “sufficient...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01587-09
Your previous case, docket number 11271-07, was denied on 15 May 2008. 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. This is an advisory memorandum to reference (a) [or use by the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) only.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10491-07
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 JRE Docket No. 10491-07 21 November 2008 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: FORMER
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6179 14
This request was denied on 30 September 2013. #, three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 22 January 2015. 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.