Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04448-08
Original file (04448-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
This is in reference to your a
naval record pursuant to the p
United States Code, section 15
selection board for the Fiscal
Selection Board.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

HD:hd
Docket No. 04448-08

15 August 2008

pplication for correction of your
rovisions of title 10 of the
52. You requested a special
Year (FY) 09 Active Line Captain

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval

Records, sitting in executive
application on 14 August 2008.

session, considered your
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

1 July 2008, a copy of which is attached. The Board also
considered your memorandum dated 5 August 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 statistics you provided did not persuade the Board that the
FY 09 Active Line Captain Selection Board was biased against

1635 officers. 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,

\p

W. DEAN PFE
Executive Dil or

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02546-08

    Original file (02546-08.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 28 April 2008 with enclosures, a copy of which...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10084-06

    Original file (10084-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board also considered your counsel’s letters dated 15 December 2006 and 4 July 2007, each with enclosure. The Board considered the error, if any, in having allowed the FY 2007 Line Captain Selection Board to review your letter to the promotion board after the convening date was harmless as it was in your favor. 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 | CY2006 | 09248-06

    Original file (09248-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 July 2007. 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. The petitioner was promoted to commander at the 16 year point and was within the flow point guidelines.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00822-09

    Original file (00822-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 22 October 2009. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations dated 1 June 2009 and the Navy Personnel Command dated 17 June and 9 July 2009, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09748-09

    Original file (09748-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application ‘on 11 March 2010. The Board was unable to find your name was removed from the report of a promotion board, under title 10, United States Code, section 618, rather than from a promotion list, under title 10, United States Code, section 629. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10412-09

    Original file (10412-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 January 2010. The Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion dated 20 October 2009 in concluding that the contested original fitness report should stand. 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 | 10693-09

    Original file (10693-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof 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 | 07643-09

    Original file (07643-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 November 2009. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion from Headquarters Marine Corps, dated 8 October 2009 with enclosures, 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.