DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BIG
Docket No: 7643-09
20 November 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 removing your failure of selection by the Fiscal
Year (FY) 2010 Reserve Captain Selection Board and changing
from 2 February 2008 to 29 July 2008 the date of your transfer
from the Standby Reserve - Inactive to the Ready Reserve.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 19 November 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 opinion from Headquarters Marine Corps,
dated 8 October 2009 with enclosures, 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. The Board did not find it unjust that when
the FY 2010 Reserve Captain Selection Board met, you had not
yet received a fitness report from the unit with which you had
affiliated. 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,
Enclosure
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 | 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 | 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 | 11168-10
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board's file on your prior case (docket number 4974-10), your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. However, the Board particularly noted the figures provided in paragraph 3 of the advisory opinion, as well as the uncontested derogatory service record page 11 entries dated 14 November 1993 and 21 March, 24 March and 15 November...
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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10904-09
° A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 12 November 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 | 10729-09
* 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 found that you offered nothing new and material regarding your transfer to the FMCR except your contention, in paragraph 5 of your letter dated 24 June 2009, that you submitted a request, never received by the HOMC. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...
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 | 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 | CY2008 | 09105-08
In addition, the Board considered the decision of the Navy Discharge Review Board (NDRB) dated 6 August 2007, 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. 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.