Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07128-06
Original file (07128-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
         BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                  2 NAVY ANNEX    
        WASHINGTON DC 203510-5100

                           CRS
                  Docket No: 7128 - 06
                  27 September 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.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 September 2006. 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 Headquarters Marine Corps dated 7 August 2006, 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,


W.       DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Direc tor

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02479-06

    Original file (02479-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval RECOTES g sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 September 2006. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 27 April 2006, 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06932-06

    Original file (06932-06.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 Headquarters Marine Corps dated 1 September 2006, 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 | CY2005 | 03435-05

    Original file (03435-05.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 the Navy Department Board of Decorations and Medals, 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07037-06

    Original file (07037-06.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 memorandum 1430 Ser 4SllE9/585, 1 October 2006, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, a majority of the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08695-06

    Original file (08695-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, 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 27 February 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03934-06

    Original file (03934-06.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 Headquarters Marine Corps dated 27 April 2006, 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 | CY2008 | 07725-08

    Original file (07725-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You may submit to NPC a statement, for inclusion in your record with the contested material, in rebuttal to the Memorandum for PERS-48; or you may ask NPC to redact the statement, in the Memorandum for PERS-48, that you consider erroneous, citing the applicable findings of the investigation. Finally, regardless of whether you are correct that no adverse material was filed in the record of the other officer whose conduct was investigated, the Board was unable to find any error or injustice...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07349-06

    Original file (07349-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 September 2006. 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 Headquarters Marine Corps dated 15 June 2006, a copy of which is attached.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10444-08

    Original file (10444-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 January 2009. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion and the report of the PERB, except to note your letter of 12 November 2008 did provide an earlier version, dated 20 September 2006, of the contested fitness report dated 22 September 2006, showing a mark of “Cc” (fifth best of seven possible)...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10601-06

    Original file (10601-06.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 memorandum 1070 MNSB-13, 27 December 2006, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, a majority of the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to...