DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
HD: hd
Docket No, 11456-08
7 May 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.
You requested removing documents pertaining to the incident of
18 January 2006, specifically, your punitive letter of reprimand
dated 15 May 2006 awarded at your nonjudicial punishment (NUP)
of 3 May 2006, other documentation of the NUP proceedings, your
detachment for cause approved on 2 January 2007, your board of
inguiry proceedings, your removal from the Fiscal Year 07/June
2006 Lieutenant Active Duty All Fully Qualified Officers List
(ADAFOOL), and your fitness report for 1 March to 16 May 2006.
You also impliedly requested correction of your record to show
you have not failed of selection for promotion to lieutenant
(you failed of selection by virtue of your removal from the FY
O7/June 2006 ADAFQOL, then you failed for FY 08/December 2007
and you were discharged on 31 December 2008 by reason of your
two failures of selection).
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your.
application on 7 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 applicable statutes,
regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the
advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated
5 February and 10 March 2009, copies of which are attached. The
Board also considered your letter dated 25 April 2009 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 opinions.
The evidence you provided indicating you tested negative for THC
did not persuade the Board that you did not use a controlled
substance. Since the Board found insufficient basis to remove
any of the contested documentation, it had no grounds to remove
either of your failures of selection to lieutenant. 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.
.@ 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,
Ly Nene Bi
W. DEAN PFET?
Executive Dive -
Enclosures
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11528-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 April 2010. The Board particularly noted that on 8 February 2007, you submitted a copy of the report ending 31 October 2006 to the FY 08 Line Commander Selection Board, convened on 13 February 2007. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07414-08
This is in naval reco United Sta You requeste May 2006 ar Year (FY) 40 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 JSR Docket No: 7414-08 4 September 2008 reference to your application for correction of your d pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the es Code, section 1552. d removal of the fitness report for 6 April to 31 hd all documentation of your removal from the Fiscal 07 Lieutenant Colonel Promotion List; reinstatement to that...
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 | 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 | CY2009 | 12430-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 June 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 28 January 2010 with enclosures, a copy of which is attached, and your letter dated 19 May 2010 with enclosures. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09748-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application ‘on 11 March 2010. The Board was unable to find your name was removed from the report of a promotion board, under title 10, United States Code, section 618, rather than from a promotion list, under title 10, United States Code, section 629. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06748-08
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 | CY2007 | 10951-07
You also impliedly requested setting aside your discharge from the Navy Reserve on 1 February 2008 by reason of your having had at least two failures of selection to lieutenant commander.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 March 2008. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08633-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 3 September 2009. Further, the Board noted that the modification of this report directed by PERB in your previous case was implemented on 7 August 2007, before the FY 2009 Lieutenant Colonel. 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 | 00366-08
After he had submitted his application, he also failed of selection by the FY 2009 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. Enclosure (2) is the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) in Petitioner’s case. In correspondence attached as enclosure (3), the HQMC Officer Counseling and Evaluation Section (NNOA-4) commented to the effect that the PERB action did not support removing Petitioner’s failure of selection by the FY 2008 Lieutenant Colonel...