Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02023-08
Original file (02023-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

MEH
Docket No. 2023-08
28 Jul 08

 

Dear 

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09026-07

    Original file (09026-07.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 CNRC 1133 Ser N53l2/09056 of 2 Jun 08, 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04235-08

    Original file (04235-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 July 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 | CY2006 | 08354-06

    Original file (08354-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTrON OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASH!NGTON DC 2O37U~5lOUMEHDocket No.8354-06 14 Aug 07—‘ ‘This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 Usc 1552.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 August 2007. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10214-06

    Original file (10214-06.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 CNRC memo 1133 Ser N53l2/09063 of 22 Jun 07, 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 | CY2009 | 07063-09

    Original file (07063-09.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. 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. Sincerel 4 W. DEAN PE Executive D Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVY RECRUITING COMMAND 5722 INTEGRITY DR. iN...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06898-06

    Original file (06898-06.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 memo 1133 Ser N53l2/09054 of 12 Dec 06, a copy of each 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 | CY2007 | 06118-07

    Original file (06118-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CNRC memo 1133 Ser N5312/09008 of 28 Jan 08, 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 establish 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03647-09

    Original file (03647-09.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 CNRC memo 1133 Ser N5312/09047 of 28 May 09, a copy of which is attached. Petitioner has applied to the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) seeking to have member’s Navy record changed.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02225-09

    Original file (02225-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 July 2009. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CNRC memo 1133 Ser N5312/09051 of 28 May 09, a copy of which is attached. W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Dir Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVY RECRUITING COMMAND 5722 INTEGRITY DR. MILLINGTON, TENNESSEE 38054-5057 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1133 Ser N5312/09051 28 May 09 MEMORANDUM FOR...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10728-07

    Original file (10728-07.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. 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. It is our opinion that in this case the petitioner has a misunderstanding as to how the NCF benefit is calculated.