Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10623-08
Original file (10623-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

BUG
Docket No: 10623-08
26 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.

Your request to remove documentation of your relief for the good
of the service from drill instructor (DI) duty was not
considered, as it does not appear in your Official Military
Personnel File.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 25 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 from Headquarters Marine Corps, dated

28 February 2008, a copy of which is attached. The Board also
considered your rebuttal letter dated 7 March 2008 with
enclosure.

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 in
concluding the removal of your 8511 (DI) Additional Military
Occupational Specialty (AMOS) should not be set aside. The
Board found your drug overdose supported the removal. In this
regard, the Board was unable to find this overdose was the
accidental result of black-outs, as you allege. Concerning your
assertion that you are now fit for DI duty, you may initiate
action, through your command, to request the 8511 AMOS be
restored. 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,

Loe SUL

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Dir

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Wed Nov 29 14_53_31 CST 2000

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 September 1999. In addition, the Board 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 warranting restoration of your drill instructor military occupational specialty (MOS) or your special duty assignment (SDA) pay. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 04433-99

    Original file (04433-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has removed your adverse fitness report for 17 October to 9 November 1998. 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 warranting restoration of your drill instructor military occupational specialty (MOS) or your special duty assignment (SDA) pay. The memorandum will...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4760 14

    Original file (NR4760 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 June 2014. 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 | 01822 12

    Original file (01822 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 12 October 2012. 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 | CY2010 | 04010-10

    Original file (04010-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 June 2010. 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 | CY2002 | 06056-02

    Original file (06056-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The petitioner has provided nothing to support his claim of injustice or that he was denied an opportunity to appeal the NJP (i.e., NJP occurred and was correctly recorded via the performance evaluation system. However, Petitioner did not appeal his punishment and does not claim that he was denied the right to do so. it is the NJP However, offenses.- C .

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03490-08

    Original file (03490-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You reguested, in effect, further consideration of the denial of your request for removal of a fitness report from your Official military Personnel File (OMPF), and a new request that certain documents and references specified in your application be removed from your OMPF, and that your name be returned to the list of officers to be promoted to lieutenant colonel for fiscal year 2007 (FY 07), or in the alternative, that you be accorded a special selection board. A three-member panel of the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08834-08

    Original file (08834-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Tt is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the contested report for 24 October 2002 to 22 September 2003. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 November 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 | 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 | 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...