Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01684-09
Original file (01684-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

HD : hd
Docket No. 01684-09
23 July 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 that your
involuntary release from active duty on 29 February 1988 be
reviewed and reversed to allow your active duty retirement.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval .
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 23 July 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
12 May and 9 July 2009, copies of which are attached, The Board
also considered your letter dated 18 June 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. The Board was unable to find any authority
indicating that you should have been continued to 20 years of
active service, or that your having completed 10 years of prior
enlisted service required your retention to enable you to accrue
20 years of active service. 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.
Consequentiy, 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,

W. DEAN DPE her
Executive Dilte r

Enclosures

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | CY2013 | NR413 13

    Original file (NR413 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested that your discharge of 10 August 2009 be voided; that you be awarded constructive service credit from 11 August 2009 to the date you would have attained 20 years of active duty service; ‘that all *red flag” actions be removed; that you be considered by a special selection board (SSB) for advancement to pay grade E-7; and that all records reflecting the substantiation of the sexual assault allegation against you be removed. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07641-09

    Original file (07641-09.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, the Board’s file on your previous case, 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06448-10

    Original file (06448-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 September 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 23 July 2010 with attached e-mail, 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 | 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 | 06739-09

    Original file (06739-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 April 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 injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00034-09

    Original file (00034-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 30 April 2009. The Board also considered your letters dated 9 and 13 April 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03574-09

    Original file (03574-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Finally, you impliedly requested removing the service record page 13 ("Administrative Remarks") entry dated 25 July 2008 and documentation of your removal from the Fiscal Year (FY) 09 Active Duty Chief Petty Officer Selection Board List.. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 December 2009, Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09966-08

    Original file (09966-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 December 2009. in addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (N134) dated 3 April 2009, the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) (PERS-32) dated 7 May 2009, NPC (PERS-007) dated 10 June 2009 with enclosure and Nec (PERS-80) dated 7 October 2009, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • 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...