DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
HD :hd
Docket No. 04501-09
4 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.
A 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
opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 21 and 28
May and 24 June 2009, 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. —
The Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion
dated 21 May 2009 in finding both contested fitness reports
should stand. In this regard, the Board was unable to find the
reporting senior lacked sufficient observation of your —
. performance to render a valid evaluation.
The Board found your failures of selection by the Fiscal Year
‘(FY) 07, O08 and 09 Reserve. Line Lieutenant Commander Selection
Boards should stand as well, as it found no defect in your
performance record; and it was unable to find your record before
any of the promotion boards concerned lacked any. material .
information. The Board noted that you assert you received the
contested fitness report for 1 October 2004 to 31 August 2005
three days before the FY 07 promotion board. convened on 22 May
2006, so you acknowledge you did have at least some opportunity
to submit correspondence to the promotion board in response to
that report. The Board substantially concurred with the
advisory opinion dated 28 May 2009 in concluding the rear |
admiral's promotion recommendation letter was properly not
considered by the FY 09 promotion board.
Since the Board found insufficient grounds to remove any of your
failures of selection for promotion, it had no basis to grant
you a special selection board, promote you to lieutenant
commander, or set aside your discharge from the Navy Reserve on
1 February 2009 (in connection with which you received a DD Form
256N ("Honorable Discharge Certificate"), rather than a DD Form
214 (certificate of discharge of release from active duty)).
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,
\) Daas |
W. DEAN PFETRVE
' Executive Dairacteo
Enclosures
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08232-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 2002. The member ’s statement and reporting senior ’s endorsement to his fitness report for the period 2 February 1995 to 3 1 January 1996 is filed in his record. As there is no evidence of administrative or material error in the member's record, per ref board is not warranted.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08895-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 January 2011. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09555-09
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the contested fitness report for 25 November 2002 to 29 May 2003. A 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 | CY2009 | 10412-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 January 2010. The Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion dated 20 October 2009 in concluding that the contested original fitness report should stand. 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 | 08633-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 3 September 2009. Further, the Board noted that the modification of this report directed by PERB in your previous case was implemented on 7 August 2007, before the FY 2009 Lieutenant Colonel. 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 | CY2002 | 01679-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 February 2002. The Board was likewise unable to find that the Commander, Naval Surface Reserve Force denied your right to an interview with him; that he inadequately reviewed the DFC documentation; or that he wrongfully concurred with and forwarded the DFC recommendation. Since the Board found that the DFC and related fitness report should stand, they had no...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09308-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 16 September 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your current application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board's files on your prior cases (docket numbers 07213-07 and 08633-09), your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04984-09
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 | CY2008 | 11456-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your. application on 7 May 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03625-10
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.