Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00167-09
Original file (00167-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
. 2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

   
  

"Sa oe
. a
Se

  

HD:hd
Docket No. 00167-09
11 June 2069

 

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 11 June 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, applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions
furnished by the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations dated 5
March 2009 and the Navy Personnel Command dated 1 April 2009
with Table 2-1 of reference (b), copies of which are attached.

The Board also considered your fax letters (two) dated 28 May
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 opinions.
Accordingly, 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,

Leak

W. DEAN PFEIF
Executive Di

 
   
 

Enclosures

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07177-08

    Original file (07177-08.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 June 2009. 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 | CY2009 | 10956-09

    Original file (10956-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 17 November and 11 December 2009 and 11 January 2010, 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04044-10

    Original file (04044-10.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 February 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04247-09

    Original file (04247-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered. 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 applyirg 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 | 06322-09

    Original file (06322-09.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 November 2009. Documentary evidence 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 | CY2009 | 08416-09

    Original file (08416-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 February 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 9 September 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 | CY2008 | 04746-08

    Original file (04746-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26| February 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. 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 | CY2009 | 09849-09

    Original file (09849-09.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 March 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel’ Command undated and dated 10 December 2009 with enclosures, 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 | CY2009 | 11523-09

    Original file (11523-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 July 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 2 December 2009 and 30 March 2010 with attachments and the Memorandum for the Record dated 29 June 2010, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04248-09

    Original file (04248-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your — application on 13 January 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...