Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07599-08
Original file (07599-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

JSR
Docket No: 7599-08
1 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 that the service record page lla (“Administrative
Remarks (1070)”") counseling entry dated 27 August 2007 be
removed and that your reduction from corporal (pay grade E-4) to
lance corporal (pay grade E-3) at nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
of 27 August 2007 be set aside.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 1 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 Headquarters Marine Corps dated 20 March
2009, 3 April 2009 and 13 April 2009 with references (b}), (c)
and (d), copies of which are 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 opinions,
except the statement, in paragraph 3.b of the advisory opinion
dated 20 March 2009, that your reinstatement to corporal would
require removing the NUP from your record. Accordingly, 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,

ly!

W. DEAN F
Executive Di r

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03510-09

    Original file (03510-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 August 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 .

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 10599 12

    Original file (10599 12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 March 2013. 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 | CY2012 | 03565-12

    Original file (03565-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 September 2012. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 27 March 2012 and the advisory opinions from HQMC dated 24 May 2012 with enclosure and 6 July 2012 with references (b), (d), (e) and (£), copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06447-08

    Original file (06447-08.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 opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 6 August and 2 October 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 | CY2010 | 11858-10

    Original file (11858-10.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 April 2011. The Board was unable to find that your circumstances prevented you from availing yourself of your opportunities to defend yourself or pursue redress regarding the contested performance evaluation reports. 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 | 04049-09

    Original file (04049-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your previous case, docket number 08315-08, was denied on 14 October 2008. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 17 December 2009. 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 | CY2006 | 06864-06

    Original file (06864-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    requested we provide an advisory opinion on (hereinafter “Applicant”) application to request the punishment he received at his nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 7 May 2006 be removed from his OMPF.2. Applicant now requests that his NJP be removed because he feels that he did not receive adequate legal representation prior to his NJP.Subj: APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION THE CASE OF CORPORAL4. While Applicant did appeal his NJP, Applicant’s concerns were reviewed by the Commanding Officer,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06748-08

    Original file (06748-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 June 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board's file on your prior case (docket number 2803-07), your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...

  • 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 | CY2010 | 11693-10

    Original file (11693-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You also requested that the service record page 11 counseling entry dated 21 November 2008 be modified by deleting the following: Your demonstrated lack of maturity, judgment and decision making abilities, specifically your inappropriate sexual relationship with a CPL [corporal] [pay grade E=-4}(fthen a PFC [private first class) [pay grade E-2] when it started). A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3...