DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 10607-08
19 March 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.
It is noted that your date of commissioning as a second
lieutenant has been adjusted, as you request, from 13 October
2001 to 13 October 1999; and your date of rank for first
lieutenant has been adjusted, as you request, from 13 October
2003 to 13 October 2001.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 19 March 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 opinion from Headquarters Marine Corps dated 19
February 2009, a copy of which is attached, and your letter
dated 12 March 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 comments contained in the advisory opinion,
except paragraphs 4.b and 4.1 and the factual matters addressed
in paragraph 2.a of your letter of 12 March 2009. The Board was
unable to find any reprisal has been taken against you because
of your effort to establish you have a legitimate complaint
regarding your constructive service credit. In view of the
above, your application for relief beyond that already effected
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,
_ W. DEAN ae
Executive Director
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03870-08
The Board noted that your fitness report record made no mention of the matters cited in the record of counseling dated 18 July 2002. Since the Board found no defect in your fitness report record, and it could not find that members of the FY 04 Active Duty Staff Lieutenant Commander Selection Board were aware of the charges that were brought against you and then dismissed, it had no grounds to grant any of the relief requested. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04984-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 2009. The Board was unable to find that the command's correspondence with MMPR-2 dated 4 December 2005, recommending a four-month delay of your promotion, was based on anything other than the NUP, noting that the appeal of your NUP was not denied until 1 December 2005. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06104-02
I3oard 2oo0, 2001 or 2002 Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection 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. Because this material was used in the board's decision to current date of selection on the FY03 licable material in his Lieutenant Colone The selection process and date of rank assignment of a 4. regularly scheduled board is different...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10904-09
° A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 12 November 2009, 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 | CY2001 | 00451-01
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 material error or injustice. This provision allows a member section 741(d) (3) only We recommend Lieutena 3. transferring to the IRR i FY-02 Naval...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08600-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 July 2001. 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. opinion furnished by the Navy which is attached.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07431-00
In addition, the Board considered the Navy Personnel Command the memorandum for the record dated 5 March 2001, and the NPC opinion dated 6 March 2001 with enclosure, copies of which are attached. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the PERS-85 advisory opinion dated 6 March 2001 in finding that your date of rank should not be adjusted because you would not have rated an adjustment when you came on active duty, had you requested one. r October 1996 of rank adjustment...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09105-08
In addition, the Board considered the decision of the Navy Discharge Review Board (NDRB) dated 6 August 2007, 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. 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 | 06101-08
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. Regulations authorize assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to members who are discharged due to a diagnosed personality disorder and are considered a potential risk to harm themselves or others if retained. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06266-10
Your previous request, docket number 12841-09, again seeking to remove the original fitness report and replace it with the revised report, or just remove the original report, and remove your failures of selection to lieutenant colonel, which then included failures of selection by the FY 2005 and 2006 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards, was administratively closed on 25 May 2010. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered...