Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05094-09
Original file (05094-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

CRS

Docket No: 5094-09
18 March 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 18 Marine 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, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations
and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory
opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 12 May 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.

The Board did not consider whether your characterization of
service should be changed, since you did not request such
consideration and you have not exhausted your administrat#ve
remedies by applying to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB).
You may do so by submitting the attached DD Form 293 to the NDRB.

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, itis 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,

\\ fe PFEFFER

Executive Diredtor

 

 

 

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07796-09

    Original file (07796-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 February 2010. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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 | 05088-10

    Original file (05088-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 July 2010. In the event that NDRB denies your application you would then be eligible to apply to this Board. 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 OF injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03391-09

    Original file (03391-09.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 did not consider whether your characterization of service or reason for separation should be changéd, since you have not exhausted your administrative remedies by applying to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB). ~ ‘Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08296-10

    Original file (08296-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 November 2010. Documentary evidence 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 | 07761-09

    Original file (07761-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 February 2010. Documentary evidence 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 | CY2010 | 09589-10

    Original file (09589-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 November 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 | CY2009 | 08548-09

    Original file (08548-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 2010. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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 | 08723-09

    Original file (08723-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary evidence 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. If NDRB denies your request for a change of discharge you would then be eligible to have your discharge reviewed by the Board for Correction of Naval Records. consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06380-10

    Original file (06380-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 October 2010. Documentary evidence 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 | 07730-09

    Original file (07730-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary evidence 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 22 July 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...