Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04202-07
Original file (04202-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

CRS
Docket No: 4202-07

11 July 2007

 

 

Dear ie

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 11 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 naval record and applicable statutes, regulations
and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory
opinions furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 1 December
2006 and 29 January 2007 as well as the advisory opinion
furnished by the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General dated 15

March 2007, copies of which are 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 opinions.
The Board also concluded that there was no basis for restoring
your military occupational specialty of drill instructor,
removing the related fitness report, or awarding you the drill
instructor ribbon, given your related acts of misconduct that
ultimately resulted in your discharge. 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,

2 Deena

Executive Dir

 

Enclosures

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07768-07

    Original file (07768-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 2O37O-5~OO JSRDocket No:7768-0727 March 2008This 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, in effect, that the package reflecting your relief for the good of the service from drill instructor duty, except the Commanding General approval letter dated 9 March 2006, be removed from your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Wed Nov 29 14_53_31 CST 2000

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 September 1999. In addition, the Board 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 warranting restoration of your drill instructor military occupational specialty (MOS) or your special duty assignment (SDA) pay. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06062-07

    Original file (06062-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 14 August 2007, a copy of which is attached. You requested an advisory opinion on the revocation of Staff Sergeant Valdez’s (hereinafter “Applicant”) appointment to the grade of Gunnery Sergeant and the removal of a charge he received at Battalion level Non-Judicial Punishment (NUP) . On 3 May 2007, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, informed the Applicant that he was revoking his promotion...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04010-10

    Original file (04010-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 June 2010. 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 | CY1999 | 04433-99

    Original file (04433-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has removed your adverse fitness report for 17 October to 9 November 1998. 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 warranting restoration of your drill instructor military occupational specialty (MOS) or your special duty assignment (SDA) pay. The memorandum will...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10210-06

    Original file (10210-06.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 report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 8 November 2006, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC Manpower Information Operations, Manpower Management Information Systems Division (Mb), dated 21...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06842-01

    Original file (06842-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review (PERB), dated 23 August 2001, 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. error to invalidate the entire report and has directed the appropriate corrective action.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10623-08

    Original file (10623-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 November 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 | CY2010 | 10661 10

    Original file (10661 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 18 August 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, and records obtained from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Tue Jan 30 17_54_01 CST 2001

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 September 1999. Therefore, Warrant Officer Colemon did not warrant Marines in receipt of permanent change Staff Sergeant Lamie, the Marine 3. asserts was given preferential treatment, was approved for early reenlistment because he was complying with orders to recruiting duty. reenlistment in 1991. meet the requirements for an early reenlistment and his...