DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX HD:hd
WASHINGTON DC 20370-51006
Docket No. 06799-0939
322 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, in effect, reinstatement to the Fiscal Year 09
“Navy Reserve Line Captain Promotion List and promotion to
captain with a date of rank and effective date of 1 April 2009.
You also requested reevaluation of findings in the Navy Reserve
Force Hotline Completion Report dated 2 April 2008 and revision
or reaccomplishment of the report. Finally, you impliedly
requested removal of documentation of the delay of your -
promotion and removal from the promotion list.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your |
application on 22 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 materiai submitted in
support thereof, applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
tn addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished
by the Navy Personnel Command dated 24 August 2009 with
enclosures, a copy of which is attached. The Board also
considered your letter dated 21 September 2009.
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.
The Board found it sufficient that you were afforded a chance to
respond to the Hotline Completion Report of 2 April 2008 before
you were removed from the promotion list. The Board concluded
your response to the CNRMW RCC letter N00/248 of 18 June 2008,
.to which you assert you did not have a chance to respond before
the decision to remove you, would not have changed the decision.
Finally, the Board was unable to find the Hotline Completion
‘Report was materially inaccurate or incomplete, such that its
revision or reaccomplishment would be warranted. 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 odrcumstances 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,
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05500-00
AEl We reached this conclusion in part because (the CO) submitted a page 13 recording Run convictions and more importantly because (the CO) signed document recorded a second DUI for (the one first class petty officer who he knew had been selected as the Wing Sailor of the Year. mind" or Even (The CO) disregarded Navy policy in frocking (A) to Chief Petty Officer in view of his hit and run convictions. AEl (A)'s Page 13 dated 1 in his microfiche COMNAVAIRPAC take (M) , against...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10084-06
The Board also considered your counsel’s letters dated 15 December 2006 and 4 July 2007, each with enclosure. The Board considered the error, if any, in having allowed the FY 2007 Line Captain Selection Board to review your letter to the promotion board after the convening date was harmless as it was in your favor. 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 | 02546-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 August 2008. 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 the Navy Personnel Command dated 28 April 2008 with enclosures, a copy of which...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 12204-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 August 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 | CY2008 | 08049-08
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (PERS - 311) dated 30 September 2008, with e-mail regarding PERS-311 contact with the reporting senior, 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. The member’s statement and the reporting senior’s endorsement to the fitness report are...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08604-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 14 May 2009. The Board found it unobjectionable that the report ending 28 December 2007 referred to your less favorable promotion recommendation in the immediately preceding report from the same reporting senior, whose removal the Board did not find warranted, Since the Board found no material defect in your performance record, it had no grounds to grant you...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09748-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application ‘on 11 March 2010. The Board was unable to find your name was removed from the report of a promotion board, under title 10, United States Code, section 618, rather than from a promotion list, under title 10, United States Code, section 629. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03374-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 June 2010. 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 your failure of selection by the FY 2010 Captain Selection Board. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval...
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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08712-10
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that the date of rank and effective date of his promotion to captain be adjusted from 1 June 2008 to reflect selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Captain Selection Board, rather than the FY 2009 Reserve Captain Selection Board. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Clemmons, Sproul and Washington, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on...