Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11270-07
Original file (11270-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100




 HD : hd
Docket No. 11270-07
 21 March 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.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 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 Navy Personnel Command dated 17 January 2008, a copy of which is attached. The Board also considered your letter dated 18 February 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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion. The Board was unable to find you were not afforded an opportunity to make a statement in reply to the contested fitness report, noting you state you “elected not to submit a statement.” Since the Board found no defect in your performance record, it had no grounds to remove your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year 08 Staff Lieutenant Commander Selection Board. 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.

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 Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11235-07

    Original file (11235-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    11235-07 29 July 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.It is noted that the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) has removed from your Official Military Personnel File all documents referring or relating to the revocation of your security clearance.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11456-08

    Original file (11456-08.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 May 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07813-08

    Original file (07813-08.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 March 2009. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 3 and 22 September 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 the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • 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 | CY2009 | 12528-09

    Original file (12528-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material. 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 | 06520-08

    Original file (06520-08.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 31 July 2008, a copy of which is attached. The Board also considered your letter dated 6 October 2008.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03625-10

    Original file (03625-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your request for investigation of the reporting Senior's actions was not considered, as the Board for Correction of Naval Records is not an investigative body. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 2010. The Board also considered the NPC e-mail dated 3 September 2009 with attachment (DD Form 214), a copy of which is attached, and your letters dated 20 August 2009 with enclosures, 30 October 2009 and 2 February 2010.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08604-08

    Original file (08604-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 14 May 2009. The Board found it unobjectionable that the report ending 28 December 2007 referred to your less favorable promotion recommendation in the immediately preceding report from the same reporting senior, whose removal the Board did not find warranted, Since the Board found no material defect in your performance record, it had no grounds to grant you...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03574-09

    Original file (03574-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Finally, you impliedly requested removing the service record page 13 ("Administrative Remarks") entry dated 25 July 2008 and documentation of your removal from the Fiscal Year (FY) 09 Active Duty Chief Petty Officer Selection Board List.. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 December 2009, Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR413 13

    Original file (NR413 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested that your discharge of 10 August 2009 be voided; that you be awarded constructive service credit from 11 August 2009 to the date you would have attained 20 years of active duty service; ‘that all *red flag” actions be removed; that you be considered by a special selection board (SSB) for advancement to pay grade E-7; and that all records reflecting the substantiation of the sexual assault allegation against you be removed. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion...