Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03902-09
Original file (03902-09.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. 03902-09
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.

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, applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions
furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 8 and 21 May 2009,
copies of which are attached. The Board also considered your

letter dated 20 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. In this comnection, the Board substantially
concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinions.
The Board was unable to find the officer who provided the
reporting senior input for the contested fitness report was
biased against you. The Board found that officer's
decertification as a lawyer did not invalidate whatever input
that officer provided for the report in question. Since the
Board found insufficient basis to correct your fitness report
record, it had no grounds to grant you a special selection board
for the Piscal Year 2006 Staff Commander Selection Board. 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,

anak

W. DEAN PFE
Executive Dil 7%

Enclosures

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04984-09

    Original file (04984-09.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 June 2009. The Board was unable to find that the command's correspondence with MMPR-2 dated 4 December 2005, recommending a four-month delay of your promotion, was based on anything other than the NUP, noting that the appeal of your NUP was not denied until 1 December 2005. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09496-10

    Original file (09496-10.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. 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 | CY2008 | 05701-08

    Original file (05701-08.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 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. 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 | CY2007 | 05658-07

    Original file (05658-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370~s 100BJGDocket No:05658-0720 July 2007This 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, in effect, that the fitness report for 4 June 2005 to 30 June 2006 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior (RS) ‘s letter dated 17 Nay 2007, by raising the marks in sections D.l...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07740-08

    Original file (07740-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 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 | CY2002 | 06721-00

    Original file (06721-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    t for the period 960914 to 970710 (TR) was Removal of Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive requested. evidenced in the final paragraph of enclosure (6) to reference REPORTING SENIORS HERE WILL BE (a) (i.e., "FITNESS REPORTS. THE FITNESS REPORTS.").

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11309-08

    Original file (11309-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 July 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 | 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 | 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 | CY2009 | 00224-09

    Original file (00224-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your — application on 23 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...