DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
HD:hd
Docket No. 07725-08
20 November 2008
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, in effect,
removing all field code 17 information, specifically, the
Commander, Navy Personnel Command (CNPC) investigation of 1
March 2006, the CNPC letter 1920 Ser 4833/0485 of 19 September
2006, your letter of 27 October 2006 and the Memorandum for
PERS-48 dated 3 November 2006.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 20 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, your naval record and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the
advisory opinion furnished by NPC dated 11 September 2008 with
references (b), (c), (d) and (g), 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. The Board substantially concurred with the
comments contained in the advisory opinion. Concerning your
assertion of false information in the Memorandum for PERS-48,
The Board considered it immaterial whether you or another
officer posted the e-mail in question, as the investigation,
finding of fact 7, states "[redacted] and [you] were both
responsible for physically bringing the e-mail into the
selection board spaces." You may submit to NPC a statement, for
inclusion in your record with the contested material, in
rebuttal to the Memorandum for PERS-48; or you may ask NPC to
redact the statement, in the Memorandum for PERS-48, that you
consider erroneous, citing the applicable findings of the
investigation. The Board noted that whether or not you were
notified that the contested material would be filed in your
record, you acknowledge having learned of its filing in April
2008. The Board was unable to find your ability to respond
effectively to the Memorandum for PERS-48 has been impaired.
Finally, regardless of whether you are correct that no adverse
material was filed in the record of the other officer whose
conduct was investigated, the Board was unable to find any error
or injustice in the decision to file the contested material in
your record. 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,
Enclosure
Nh
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07493-05
5420 Ser 00J3/097 12 Dec 05MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Via: Assistant for BCNR Matters, PERS-3LC2 Subj: REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION ICO CDR Reference (a) requested this office provide comments on Petitioner’s request to remove service record documents related to a “matter of interest” holding stemming from a Commander Pacific Fleet hothine complaint report of investigation. On the contrary, reference (b) gives Commander, Navy Personnel...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08833-08
— A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 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. The Board was unable to find he ever lost objectivity toward you.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02595-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 June 2001. 1034 you may request the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) consider an application for correction of your military records. 3 a 1 September 1999. timely review of this case is requested.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2007-03405-2
In view of this, we believe the only viable option at this point in time is to recommend his promotion to the grade of major by the Fiscal Year 2007 Reserve Major Board. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that: He was awarded an additional 12 paid inactive duty training (IDT) points, 14 active duty training (ADT) points, and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 05572-03
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 report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 26 June 2003, a copy of which is attached. The Board was unable to find the contested fitness report was given as a form of punishment.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10583-06
Your previous case, docket number 7199-06, was denied on 7 September 2006. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 May 2008. 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 | CY2011 | 03701-11
The Board also considered your counsel’s letters dated 11 November 2010 and 22 April 2011 with enclosure. Since the Board still found no defect in your fitness report record, it had no basis to recommend your advancement to either pay grade E-8 or E-9,. In view of the above, the Board again voted to deny relief.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11858-10
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 | 03574-09
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 | CY2009 | 02822-09
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by modifying the fitness report for 18 December 2007 to 31 October 2008 (copy at Tab A) by deleting all marks, averages, recommendations and comments from blocks 33-43 and 45 and all statements and attachments. d. The contested fitness report shows Petitioner was the executive officer (XO) aboard...