DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
: 2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 5583-09
29 October 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.
You requested remedial consideration for promotion to gunnery
sergeant (pay grade E-7) in the 0193 (administrative chief)
military occupational specialty (MOS), rather than MOS 4421
(legal services chief), for “fiscal years 1998 through 2006.”
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 29 October 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 opinions from Headquarters Marine Corps dated 16 July
and 11 August 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. In this comnection, the Board substantially
concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion
dated 11 August 2009. 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,
Qa
W. DEAN PFET
Executive Dii
Enclosure
Copy to:
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03555-09
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 | CY2009 | 08488-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 October 2009. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 21 September 2009, a copy of which is attached. The advisory opinion, which recommends approving your request, says you met the requirements for promotion to lieutenant junior grade and that you accepted your appointment on 27 July 1956.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR413 13
You requested that your discharge of 10 August 2009 be voided; that you be awarded constructive service credit from 11 August 2009 to the date you would have attained 20 years of active duty service; ‘that all *red flag” actions be removed; that you be considered by a special selection board (SSB) for advancement to pay grade E-7; and that all records reflecting the substantiation of the sexual assault allegation against you be removed. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05418-08
Concerning your objection that your promotion was delayed beyond 90 days after final action in your criminal case, the Board noted that the delay of your promotion was not based solely on the proceedings in state court, but also on the disposition of your case by military authorities. Even if the six-month provision of SECNAVINST 1412.9B is considered applicable to the delay in your case, the Board noted that on 12 October 2005, before your promotion had been delayed for six months,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08531-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 2010. 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 injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09891-09
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 opinions from Headquarters Marine Corps dated 24 August and 24 September 2010, copies of which are attached, and your letter dated 11 October 2010 with enclosure. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07477-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 April 2010. 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 injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07648-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 April 2010. 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 injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00822-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 22 October 2009. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations dated 1 June 2009 and the Navy Personnel Command dated 17 June and 9 July 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04046-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 August 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...