DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 5823-08
14 November 2008
Dear Sergé
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 that the service record page 11 (“Administrative
Remarks (1070)") entry dated 11 April 2005 be amended to reflect
you have had only one page 11 entry. You assert that the entry
at issue says it was your second page 11 entry, and you contend
this should be reworded in light of this Board’s action in your
previous case, docket number 8514-07, to remove the page 11
entry dated 1 August 2005.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 14 November 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, the Board’s file on your previous case, your
naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion from
Headquarters Marine Corps dated 1 October 2008, 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,
noting the contested entry actually does not refer to a previous
page 11 entry, but rather states your assault and battery
conviction of 15 March 2005 “has been your second offense of
search [sic] nature.” The Board further observed that the
uncontested page 11 entry dated 27 July 2005 refers to an
assault and battery conviction on 11 October 2004, which is
before the conviction cited in the contested entry, so the
reference to a “second offense” of the same nature would appear
to be correct. 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,
\Sdancs
W. DEAN PFETI
Executive Dirkst
Fnclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04206-09
That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070})"} entry dated 27 July 2005 and her undated rebuttal. That her record be corrected further by removing the service record page 11 entry dated 24 October 2005. c. That her record be corrected further by modifying the service record page 11 entry dated 11 April 2005 by removing “This has been your second offense of search [sic] nature.” d. That any material or entries...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06786-07
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.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You enlisted in the Navy on 11 June 1991 at age 19. Unfortunately, on 9 January 2006, the discharge...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01155-02
In response to the draft action, on 11 March 1998 you submitted the following statement: I am aware of the consequences of this conviction in both the Naval Service and the Civil System and I accept full responsibility for my actions. On 14 December 1998 the Commander, Training Wing FIVE submitted a final Civil Action Report to Navy Personnel Command that stated, in part, as follows: This is not (LTJG M's; alcohol related incident February 1998 for a DUI offense on 22 July 1997 and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03840-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 March 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 | CY2008 | 07980-08
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the contested fitness report. Having reviewed all the facts of record, the Board has directed that your naval record will be corrected by removing the following fitness report: Date of Report Reporting Senior Period of Report 16 January 2006 20050101 to 20051231 (AN) 2. By direction DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROAD QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103 1070 MIO SEP 8...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07308-05
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 26 October 2005, a copy of which is attached, and your rebuttal to the opinion.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5059 13
By letter of 11 April 2013, you requested removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) entry dated 15 September 2008. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 October 2013. 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 | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901248
The Applicant, through his counsel, requested a change on the Applicant’s DD Form 214, block 26 (separation code) and block 28 (narrative reason for separation) to support separation due to completion of his active obligated service. The Board determined this issue is without merit and an upgrade would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 05336-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 August 2011. Since the Board found insufficient basis to remove or modify the page 11 entry, and you have provided no other new and Material evidence or other matter regarding the previously contested fitness report, the Board had no grounds to remove or modify the report. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09080-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 September 2008. In this regard, there is no evidence that you previously received a general discharge. 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.