Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07869-08
Original file (07869-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

BIG
Docket No: 7869-08
26 September 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.

It is noted that Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) has filed in
your record references (c) through (f£) of their advisory opinion
dated 11 June 2008, a copy of which is attached.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 25 September 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 cited above and your undated rebuttal letter
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 Board found the contested document is not irrelevant, as
your promotion was not effected before this document was
executed on 7 April 2004, but was delayed until 1 March 2005.
Further, the Board noted the determination that you were not
guilty of the charges against you did not establish that you
were, in fact, innocent. In view of the above, your application
for relief beyond or other than that effected by HOMC 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,

Wrest

W. DEAN PFE
Executive Di a

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02806-08

    Original file (02806-08.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 21 May 2008, a copy of which is attached.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05058-08

    Original file (05058-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 September 2008. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion, except to note your request was not for remedial consideration for promotion to master sergeant, but adjusting the date of rank and effective date of your promotion to reflect selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Master Sergeant Selection...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06325-08

    Original file (06325-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 January 2009. In this regard, the Board noted that the recommendation, in the MCRC advisory opinion dated 3 September 2008, to remove this documentation gave no basis for concurring with your request. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00944-08

    Original file (00944-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 August 2008. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 29 February 2008, 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07365-08

    Original file (07365-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 November 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. 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 | 10444-08

    Original file (10444-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 January 2009. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion and the report of the PERB, except to note your letter of 12 November 2008 did provide an earlier version, dated 20 September 2006, of the contested fitness report dated 22 September 2006, showing a mark of “Cc” (fifth best of seven possible)...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08069-08

    Original file (08069-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You further requested reconsideration for retention in the Navy. It is noted that the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) corrected the PSR as you requested, in August 2008. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 March 2009.

  • 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 | CY2007 | 05527-07

    Original file (05527-07.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 February 2008. Documentary material considered b 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 material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06650-07

    Original file (06650-07.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 February 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...