Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00822-09
Original file (00822-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

HD:hd
Docket No. 00822-0909
3 November 2009

 

This is in reference to your application dated 10 December: 2008;
seeking reconsideration of your previous application. for
correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of
title 10 of the United Statés Code, section 1552. Your previous.
case, docket number 08265-01, was denied on-16 December 2002,

You renewed your request to remove the fitness report for 1
September 1999 to 31 August 2000 and your failures of selection.

by the Fiscal year (FY) 01 through 03 Line Captain Petection
Boards.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on
22 October 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. -
letter, together with all material submitted in support thereof,
the Board's file on your prior case, your naval record and hs
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the
Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Office of
the Chief of Naval Operations dated 1 June 2009 and the Navy
Personnel Command dated 17 June and 9 July 2009, copies of which

are attached. The Board also considered your letter dated .
6 October 2009... f i.

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.
Since the Board still found no defect in your performance —
record, it still had no basis to strike any of your failures of
selection by the FY 01 through 03 Line Captain Selection Boards.
In view of the above, the Board again voted to deny relief. 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,

Lay 4 a
W. DEAN PF

Executive Di

   

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09248-06

    Original file (09248-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 July 2007. 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 petitioner was promoted to commander at the 16 year point and was within the flow point guidelines.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07125-00

    Original file (07125-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The member alleges an administrative error was made on his fitness report in question concerning his promotion recommendation. c. The member and the reporting senior refer to changes to the fitness report in question as administrative changes. is returned concurr 5420 Pers 85 27 Mar 01 ings of NR The fitness report dated 14 Jul 98 2. have affected the FY-00 Active Duty Captain Line Promotion Selection Board, as it The FY-01 board would have been the first convened 14 Jan 99. to review the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10084-06

    Original file (10084-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board also considered your counsel’s letters dated 15 December 2006 and 4 July 2007, each with enclosure. The Board considered the error, if any, in having allowed the FY 2007 Line Captain Selection Board to review your letter to the promotion board after the convening date was harmless as it was in your favor. 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 | CY2003 | 03768-03

    Original file (03768-03.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    of 11931 to “ 1” of 39933; or if neither of these actions is possible, remove the original report; and remove the failures of selection by the FY 2003 and 2004 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your letter, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board’s files on your prior cases, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The modification of the report would increase the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05662-00

    Original file (05662-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board found that even if you had been considered by the Mobilization Disposition Board, and you had been - Inactive status as a result of approval of a board occurred until after the Fiscal Year (FY) 00 Naval Reserve Line Lieutenant Commander Selection Board had adjourned. recommendation again th is requesting removal 0 promotion to lieutenant original opinion stating that he transferred to Standby 19 May 1999 Naval Reserve Officer Mobilization Disposition Board. tha would have been a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04456-00

    Original file (04456-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (MSC) Captain Selection Boards; special selection board Naval Reserve MSC Captain Selection Board, by which you You requested, in effect, removal of your failures of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 through 2003 Medical Service consideration for the FY 2000 were not considered; and amendment of the remedial memorandum now in your naval record, stating you have served on active duty continuously since your discharge from the Regular Navy on 31 January 1990, to show you are “USN” (United...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05149-08

    Original file (05149-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 February 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 | CY2010 | 03374-10

    Original file (03374-10.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 June 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 warranting removal of your failure of selection by the FY 2010 Captain Selection Board. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00899-02

    Original file (00899-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board also considered your letter dated 4 October 2002 with enclosures. The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the 2. The fitness report itself represents the opinion of the reporting senior.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02546-08

    Original file (02546-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 August 2008. 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 opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 28 April 2008 with enclosures, a copy of which...