Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00659-09
Original file (00659-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5196

HD: hd
Docket No. 00659-09
8 January 2010

 

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 7 January 2010. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed 4n 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 and applicable statutes, regulations and
policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory
opinion furnished by the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations

dated 2 April 2009, a copy of which is attached.

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,
and further noted that all Physical Readiness Information
Management System (PRIMS) data that is over four years old is
automatically removed. The Board found the absence from your
record of a service record page 13 (“Administrative Remarks” )
entry documenting a Physical Fitness Assessment failure would
not prove you had no such failure. 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,

 

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01713-10

    Original file (01713-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting im executive session, considered your application on 6 January 2011. The Board further neted that the waiver document you provided is dated 2 April 2006, the same date as the Body Composition Assessment (BCA) you failed in cycle 1, 2006, so the Board was unable to find the waiver was in effect when that BCA was conducted. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03038-09

    Original file (03038-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    , A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your | application on 28 January 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, dated 20 May. 2009 with attachment and 19 August 2009, and the Navy Personnel Command dated 23 June 2009, copies of which are attached.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01037-09

    Original file (01037-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 January 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory | opinions furnished by the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and the Navy Personnel Command dated 28 May 2009 with enclosure and 23 June 2009, respectively, 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 | CY2010 | 11845-10

    Original file (11845-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested removing the fitness report for 1 February to 9 June 2003. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 May 2011 and completed its deliberations on 11 August 2011. 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 | 02796-09

    Original file (02796-09.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 January 2010. 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 | 12430-09

    Original file (12430-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 | CY2010 | 02535-10

    Original file (02535-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 September 2010. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion, but noted PRIMS reflects no BCA conducted on 8 May 2009 (it shows you were medically waived from the BCA conducted on 15 October 2009). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12528-09

    Original file (12528-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material. 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 | 01486-10

    Original file (01486-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 August 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 31 March 2010, a copy of which ig 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 | 10794-10

    Original file (10794-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 January 2011. in addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 26 October 2010, a copy of whichis 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.