Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04473-09
Original file (04473-09.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. 04473-09
5 February 2010

 

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.

BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 4 February 2010. 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 and applicable statutes, regulations and
policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory
opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) dated
25 June 2009 and the NPC e-mail dated 25 January 2010, copies of
Which are 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,
as supplemented by the e-mail dated 25 January 2010.
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,

WWE PREY?

Executive D

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 13125-10

    Original file (13125-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 2011. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) dated 18 January 2011 with enclosure and the NPC e-mail dated 1 March 2011, 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 of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03625-10

    Original file (03625-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your request for investigation of the reporting Senior's actions was not considered, as the Board for Correction of Naval Records is not an investigative body. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 2010. The Board also considered the NPC e-mail dated 3 September 2009 with attachment (DD Form 214), a copy of which is attached, and your letters dated 20 August 2009 with enclosures, 30 October 2009 and 2 February 2010.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10612-10

    Original file (10612-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your previous case, docket number 018976-10, was denied on 2 September 2010. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 6 October 2011. In addition; the Board considered the e-mail advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) dated 21 September 2010 with attachments and the National Naval Medical Center (NNMC) Bethesda dated 22 August 2011 with attachment, copies of which are attached.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03701-11

    Original file (03701-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board also considered your counsel’s letters dated 11 November 2010 and 22 April 2011 with enclosure. Since the Board still found no defect in your fitness report record, it had no basis to recommend your advancement to either pay grade E-8 or E-9,. In view of the above, the Board again voted to deny relief.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11347-09

    Original file (11347-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    - A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 June 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) dated 1 and 15 December 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 of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3378 14

    Original file (NR3378 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 December 2014 and requested that an additional advisory opinion be obtained from the Navy Personnel Command (NPC). The Board also considered your letter dated 12 September 2014 with enclosures and your e-mail dated 10 December 2014. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11528-09

    Original file (11528-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 April 2010. The Board particularly noted that on 8 February 2007, you submitted a copy of the report ending 31 October 2006 to the FY 08 Line Commander Selection Board, convened on 13 February 2007. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02778-00

    Original file (02778-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You alleged that your spot promotion correspondence was mailed for consideration by the FY 00 First Quarter Spot Selection Board, convened on 5 November 1999. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 April 2001. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11235-07

    Original file (11235-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    11235-07 29 July 2008This 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.It is noted that the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) has removed from your Official Military Personnel File all documents referring or relating to the revocation of your security clearance.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09830-10

    Original file (09830-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 February 2011. 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...