Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11271-07
Original file (11271-07.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. 11271-07
20 May 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 15 May 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 28 February 2008, a copy of which is attached. The Board also considered your fax dated 9 May 2008 with enclosures.

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 found the service record page 13 entry referred to revocation of advancement, rather than withdrawal or withholding of recommendation for advancement, because your advancement had been automatically posted. 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 | 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 | CY2008 | 07751-08

    Original file (07751-08.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 opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 3 September 2008, 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 | 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 | 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00266-08

    Original file (00266-08.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. Regarding the report for 16 March to 24 October 2007, the Board Gid not find the "Promotable" (third best) promotion recommendation conflicting with the remainder the report, nor could the Board find the reporting senior’s second recommendation for your conversion to career counselor invalidated the report. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05588-08

    Original file (05588-08.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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 18 July and 3 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 the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04008-08

    Original file (04008-08.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. 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 | 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 | 10087-08

    Original file (10087-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 April 2009. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 24 November 2008 with attachments (your fitness reports for 17 August 2007 to 29 February 2008 and 1 April to 16 May 2008), a copy of which is attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11211-07

    Original file (11211-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board also considered your fax letter dated 20 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.Specifically regarding the contested fitness report for 16 September 2005 to 14 August 2006, the Board agreed with you that the reporting senior failed to provide the required narrative justification for the adverse marks assigned. ...