Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05944-07
Original file (05944-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

HD:hd
Docket No. 05944-07

14 February 2008

 

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, in effect, that your naval record be corrected to
show you were commissioned in the grade of lieutenant junior
grade, rather than ensign, and that your promotion to lieutenant

be backdated accordingly.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 14 February 2008. 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 the Chief, Bureau of Medicine and
Surgery dated 14 September 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,

\s

W. DEAN PP
Executive Di

 
  
 

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09105-08

    Original file (09105-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the decision of the Navy Discharge Review Board (NDRB) dated 6 August 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. 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 | CY2008 | 01753-08

    Original file (01753-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 June 2008. your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 17 April 2008, a copy of which is attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03760-08

    Original file (03760-08.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 the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 20 May 2008, a copy of which is attached. Sincerely, Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND 5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000 5420 PERS-80 20 May 2008 MEMORANDUM...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05149-08

    Original file (05149-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 February 2009. 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 | 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 | CY2008 | 02806-08

    Original file (02806-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 August 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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 21 May 2008, a copy of which is attached.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01029-09

    Original file (01029-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 February 2009. 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 | CY2007 | 06704-07

    Original file (06704-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval! 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 material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09245-09

    Original file (09245-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (reviewing officer’s marks and comments.) 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 ef an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11016-08

    Original file (11016-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with alli material submitted in support thereof, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 11 December 2008 with enclosures and 24 December 2008, copies of - which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...