Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01749-09
Original file (01749-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

JSR
Docket No: 1749-09
4 June 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 you be promoted to major, United States
Marine Corps Reserve, with a date of rank and effective date of
1 June 2008, pursuant to your selection by the Fiscal Year 2009
Reserve Major Selection Board.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 4 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, your naval record and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the
advisory opinion from Headquarters Marine Corps dated 25 March
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.
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,

Wass

W. DEAN PFEITF
Executive Dir oO

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06792-09

    Original file (06792-09.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 October 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 | 13280-09

    Original file (13280-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 2011. In light of the e-mail dated 20 December 2010, the Board was unable to find an adverse version of the fitness report for 1 June 2006 to 30 June 2007 was in your record considered by the FY 2009 Major Selection Board. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09932-09

    Original file (09932-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    These requests were denied on 2 September 2004. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion from the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Career Management Team (CMT), dated 24 July 2008 with enclosures, and the reports of the HQMC Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 18 September 2008 and 8 September 2009, 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 12000-08

    Original file (12000-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 22 January 2009 and 26 February 2009 with enclosures, copies of which are attached. In this regard, the Board noted that the favorable advisory opinion dated 22 January 2009 did not acknowledge the information reflected in enclosures (2), (3), (4) and (9) of the advisory opinion dated 26 February 2009. Reserve Affairs reiterates (as previously stated in the advisory opinion dated 16 May...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00093-10

    Original file (00093-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing both contested fitness reports. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 March 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 | CY2010 | 09121-11

    Original file (09121-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 found it was during the period of the contested fitness report that you received a formal counseling for your conduct before that period, as mentioned in section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”) of the report. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06106-09

    Original file (06106-09.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 October 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable. 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 | 05057-09

    Original file (05057-09.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 July 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 material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03425-09

    Original file (03425-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) has informed the Board that reserve officers with at least 16 years of qualifying service are considered by a continuation board to determine if they should be retained to complete eligibility for reserve retirement. If in 2010 you are not selected for continuation, that will be the time to submit an application to the Board. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07246-10

    Original file (07246-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 September 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...