Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00226-09
Original file (00226-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

BAN
Docket No. 00226-09
21 January 2009

 

Dear i pe

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 21 January 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. The Board considered the advisory
opinion by Headquarters, United States Marine Corps stating that
although you were eligible for promotion consideration to the
rank of staff sergeant in occupational field 3000 in calendar
years 1990, 1991, and 1992, and you were recommended for
promotion by your commanding officer, you were not selected for

promotion.

Therefore, 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.
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 also 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 PF
Executive Di Xr

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08895-10

    Original file (08895-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 January 2011. 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 material error or...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04260-11

    Original file (04260-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 February 2012. 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 | CY2008 | 08812-08

    Original file (08812-08.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 addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 23 and 30 October 2008, 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 | 04501-09

    Original file (04501-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 February 2010. 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 material error or...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08488-09

    Original file (08488-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 October 2009. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 21 September 2009, a copy of which is attached. The advisory opinion, which recommends approving your request, says you met the requirements for promotion to lieutenant junior grade and that you accepted your appointment on 27 July 1956.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06799-09

    Original file (06799-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your | application on 22 October 2009. The Board found it sufficient that you were afforded a chance to respond to the Hotline Completion Report of 2 April 2008 before you were removed from the promotion list. 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 | 11168-10

    Original file (11168-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 4974-10), your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. However, the Board particularly noted the figures provided in paragraph 3 of the advisory opinion, as well as the uncontested derogatory service record page 11 entries dated 14 November 1993 and 21 March, 24 March and 15 November...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12202-09

    Original file (12202-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You request promotion to lieutenant commander with an effective date of 24 July 2009. AR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 2010. 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 | 12204-08

    Original file (12204-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 August 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 | 00587-09

    Original file (00587-09.PDF) Auto-classification: Denied

    ™ A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 April 2009. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (PERS-~- 311) dated 26 February 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.