Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06973-08
Original file (06973-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

JSR
Decket No: 6973-08
30 July 2009

 

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 removing the HOMC APS 1650 (EF) reflecting -
disapproval of the recommendation that you be awarded the Navy
and Marine Corps Commendation Medal. You also requested
remedial consideration for the Fiscal Year 2009 Marine Corps
Reserve (Active Reserve) Chief Warrant Officer 5 (CWO5)
Selection Board and, by implication, removal of your failure of
selection by that promotion board.

It is noted that Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) has removed
the contested HQMC APS 1650 (EF) from your naval record.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 30 July 2009. 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 opinions from HQOMC dated 23 October 2008 with enclosure
(3) and 26 February and 26 May 2009, copies of which are
attached, and your letter dated 3 April 2009.
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 advisory opinions dated 26 February and 26
May 2009 in concluding you did not exercise due diligence. ~
Accordingly, your application for relief beyond that effected by
HQMC 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,

 

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04799-06

    Original file (04799-06.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. The Board noted that only the FY 1971 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, convened on 4 August 1970, could have seen either of the contested letters, and that this promotion board could have seen only the letter dated 11 June 1970. In this regard, the Board found your record also included...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10175-08

    Original file (10175-08.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. Regarding the recommendation, in paragraphs 4.b.ii and 5 of the JAM5 advisory opinion, to amend the commanding officer’s/RO’s letter of 4 May 2006 (among the ericlosures to the HQMC routing sheet dated 10 October 2006) by removing the words “for his civilian conviction,” the Board noted that...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09245-09

    Original file (09245-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (reviewing officer’s marks and comments.) 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 ef an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09555-09

    Original file (09555-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the contested fitness report for 25 November 2002 to 29 May 2003. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 2010. 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 | 00224-09

    Original file (00224-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your — application on 23 July 2009. 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. 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 | CY2009 | 09932-09

    Original file (09932-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    These requests were denied on 2 September 2004. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion from the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Career Management Team (CMT), dated 24 July 2008 with enclosures, and the reports of the HQMC Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 18 September 2008 and 8 September 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 the existence...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06987-09

    Original file (06987-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 September 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 | CY2009 | 06382-09

    Original file (06382-09.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. 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. Since the Board found insufficient basis ‘to remove those documents, it had no grounds to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06106-09

    Original file (06106-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 October 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable. 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 | 08104-08

    Original file (08104-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 January 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...