Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06933-06
Original file (06933-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O-5100



CRS
                                                                                 Docket No: 6933-06
13 Dece mb er 2007









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- mémber panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 December 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 naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the letter to you furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 13 November 1985, 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 letter. 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.






W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06111-10

    Original file (06111-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 2011. The Board also considered the advisory opinions from the Marine Corps Recruiting Command Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, dated 13 August and 28 December 2010, and the letter from this Board, dated 20 January 2011 with enclosures, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10794-10

    Original file (10794-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 January 2011. in addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 26 October 2010, a copy of whichis 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03844-07

    Original file (03844-07.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 August 2008. In addition, the Board considered the reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 24 April 2007 and 11 March 2008, and the advisory opinion from the HOMC Military Law Branch, Judge Advocate Division (JAM3), dated 4 September 2007, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04666-07

    Original file (04666-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 February 2008. 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 | CY2009 | 11528-09

    Original file (11528-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 April 2010. The Board particularly noted that on 8 February 2007, you submitted a copy of the report ending 31 October 2006 to the FY 08 Line Commander Selection Board, convened on 13 February 2007. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01382-06

    Original file (01382-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    01382-0628 February 2006-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.You requested that your minimum service obligation be reduced from eight to seven years, or that you be released from active duty effective February 2006. As indicated in the enclosed letter dated 2 February 2006, your case was administratively closed, pending exhaustion of the administrative remedy of submitting...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10863-06

    Original file (10863-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board was likewise unable to find the reporting senior lacked sufficient basis for his finding that you had engaged in “inappropriate conduct.” On the contrary, your statement in reply to the contested fitness report revealed that the reporting senior had “received a letter from a woman [you] had been dating alleging harassment.” 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. “Recently counseled for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02719-07

    Original file (02719-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 02756-08

    Original file (02756-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2008. On 21 June 2007, you officially received your retirement orders at the retirement grade of 0-5 (commander) . Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change to your retirement grade due to the seriousness of your misconduct and found no legal error or injustice in your case.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11523-09

    Original file (11523-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 July 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 2 December 2009 and 30 March 2010 with attachments and the Memorandum for the Record dated 29 June 2010, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...