Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05864-09
Original file (05864-09.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. 05864-09
8 April 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. You requested removing the
fitness reports for 16 March 2005 to 15 March 2006 and

16 September 2005 to 15 September 2006.

Your request to remove the report for 16 March 2005 to 15 March
2006 was not considered, as it does not appear in your naval
record.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 8 April 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 24 June
and 9 October 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 warranting removal of the report for 16
September 2005 to 15 September 2006. In this connection, the
Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion dated
9 October 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 upen 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,

lo NaS

W. DEAN P
Executive r ir

Enclosures

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | CY2009 | 11264-09

    Original file (11264-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 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 | 00587-09

    Original file (00587-09.PDF) Auto-classification: Denied

    ™ A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 April 2009. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (PERS-~- 311) dated 26 February 2009, a copy of which is 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 | CY2009 | 00808-09

    Original file (00808-09.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 January 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory | opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 25 February 2009, a copy of which is 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 | CY2010 | 09308-10

    Original file (09308-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 08554-09

    Original file (08554-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board further concurred with the advisory opinion in = concluding your selection by the FY 2010 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board would have been definitely unlikely, even if your record had not included the fitness report CMC has directed removing. request, a Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report for i July 2005 to 21 June 2006, you may submit the RS’s letter and the RO’s endorsement to future selection boards. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04173-09

    Original file (04173-09.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. 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 material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11456-08

    Original file (11456-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your. application on 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 | 11858-10

    Original file (11858-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 April 2011. The Board was unable to find that your circumstances prevented you from availing yourself of your opportunities to defend yourself or pursue redress regarding the contested performance evaluation reports. 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 | 09555-09

    Original file (09555-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.