DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 11218-08
i4 May 2009
Dear
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.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, ‘considered your
application on 14 May 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 applicabie statutes,
regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the
advisory opinions from Headquarters Marine Corps Gated 5 and 23
February 2009, copies of which are attached.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Boarc 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.
The Board was unable to find that you were denied due process,
that the matter of the flyover on 15 March 2008 was
unnecessarily elevated to the highest. levels, or that command
influence was involved in your Field Flight Performance Board
(FFPB), your Flight Status Selection Board (FSSB) or the Deputy.
Commandant for Aviation (DCA) decision te decision to take more
severe administrative action against you than that recommended
by the FFPB and FSSB. The Board was likewise unable to find the
Commanding Officer, Military Air Group 41 decision to convene
the FFPB was influenced by his having been under investigation
himself. Finally, the Board was unable to find the DCA was
given erroneous data that influenced his decision.
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,
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR12997 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 January 2015. 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. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00648-01
LTCOL E submitted a report of his investigation on 30 May 1986 and concluded that although MAJ S was disliked by many members of LTCOL E further found that HMM-364, he was a competent officer. On 17 December 1986, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) action was initiated against you for the following specifications of LTCOLs E and R, no disciplinary Documentation in the record indicates that on 1 He recommended charges be disrespect to a superior officer 3 disrespect, disobedience and dereliction...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11171-08
Your request to change flight status was not considered, as it is the policy of the Board for Correction of Naval Records not to entertain such requests. The Board was likewise unable to find that your loss of situational awareness was insufficient to support the decision to assign you B(2) status. 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 | CY2009 | 03192-09
You requested completely removing the fitness report for 1 June 2005 to 31 March 2006. In addition, the Board considered the reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 18 March and 2 April 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 of probable material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03625-10
Your request for investigation of the reporting Senior's actions was not considered, as the Board for Correction of Naval Records is not an investigative body. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 2010. The Board also considered the NPC e-mail dated 3 September 2009 with attachment (DD Form 214), a copy of which is attached, and your letters dated 20 August 2009 with enclosures, 30 October 2009 and 2 February 2010.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01524-11
Your request to change your flight status was not considered, as it is the policy of the Board for Correction of Naval Records not to entertain such requests. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof 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 | 00874-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 April 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 5 March 2010, 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 | CY2009 | 12296-09
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 this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB, except the Board was persuaded that the reporting senior’s portion of the original version of a superseded version of the contested fitness report for 3 October 2007 to 30 September...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01945-01
He also stated that a member could bank time from other commands because flight time was flight time, no matter where a member flew. e to my office to look over Master Chief inal documentation ere was no way possible tha a as Fr To Subj: LIGHT RECORDS After reviewing subject members NATOPS Jacket and Service 1. In this case, the reporting senior made it clear in block-42 Comments on Performance, the reason for preparing the report as he did.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09783-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 January 2011. 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...