Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02498-09
Original file (02498-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

s ; Lec
Docket No. 2498-09
27 Jul og

 

 

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

27 duly 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 furnished by CMC memorandum 4050.1T
LPD-2 of 30 September 2008, 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. The Board found that you were

properly authorized to ship 13,000 pounds of personal property.
Professional Books, Papers and Equipment, and packing materials were
properly deducted from your total weight shipped. However, even with
those deductions, your shipment exceeded your allowable weight and the
debt was properly calculated and is a valid debt. 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 ig 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,
\WMealed
W. DEAN
Enclosure Executive ector

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03819-00

    Original file (03819-00.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. opinion furnished by NAVSUPSYSCMD memorandum 4050 SER 2000, a copy of which is attached. 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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011724

    Original file (20130011724.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    As he was authorized to ship 18,000 lbs of HHG, he exceeded his authorized weight by 6,700 lbs and incurred a debt of $8,183.18. The PPSO must request a reweigh for shipments exceeding the JFTR weight allowance. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was properly notified on 24 September 2010, when his HHG were picked up from his residence in Virginia, that his HHG had a total net weight of 28,680 lbs.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02756-01

    Original file (02756-01.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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CMC memorandum 4050.1K LFT-3-WC of 21 May 2001, a copy of which is attached. A service member cannot plan the shipment of personal property based on future promotions, nor can a change or cancellation of an assignment be...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5673 13

    Original file (NR5673 13.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 May 2014. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, ‘the Board found 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 error...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10627-07

    Original file (10627-07.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. You reenlisted in the Navy on 22 March 1985 for four years. 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 | CY2001 | 01396-00

    Original file (01396-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    D.C. 20350-200 NAV Y S 0 IN REPLY REFER TO 5420 Ser 14 June 2000 N130D/ OuO329 MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS via: Assistant for BCNR Matters (Pers-OOZCB) Ref: (a) DODINST 1304.22 Encl: (1) BCNR File #01396-00 with microfiche service record The following p.rovides comment and recommendation on former 1. Petty Officer initial enlistment into the Navy was ay she signed an agreement and 3. on 1 June 1987. statement of understanding that by electing...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06977-01

    Original file (06977-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” The Board noted that it is the function of an MEB, which is composed entirely of physicians, to report on the state of health of the service member who is the subject of the MEB, and to recommend referral of the member to the PEB in appropriate cases. In reference to the question of why Petitioner's cardiac and pulmonary conditions found not unfitting at the time of his initial PEB adjudication and placement on the TDRL, reference Petitioner's original 14 February 1992 Medical Evaluation...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08355-01

    Original file (08355-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In this regard, the E3oard noted that the VA assigns disability ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for military duty, whereas the military departments rate only those conditions which render a service member unfit for duty. The Board concluded that had the PEB had found your arthritis to be unfitting as of 1 October 1994, it is unlikely that you would have received a substantial rating for that condition, because substantial deductions would have been taken from the rating for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200741

    Original file (0200741.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00741 INDEX NUMBER: 128.10 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His indebtedness to the government in the amount of $1982.61 for multiple warehouse handling, drayage charges, and overweight shipment of household goods be remitted. We took notice of the applicant's complete...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04674-01

    Original file (04674-01.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. An average of 3.0 in conduct was The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your prior honorable service, post service conduct, and your contention that the general discharge was unjust and too severe as...