DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
HD: ha
Docket No. 09748-09
13 March 2010
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of tatle 10 of the
United States Code, section 1552.
You requested, in effect, that the removal of your name from the >
Fiscal Year (FY) 08 Active Duty Captain Staff Promotion List he
declared void; that you be reinstated to the FY 08 promotion
list; that you be promoted, in accordance with your selection by
the FY 08 Active Duty Captain Staff Selection Board, with back
pay and benefits; and that all documentation of and references
to your removal from the FY 08 promotion list be removed from |
your record.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application ‘on 11 March 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
16 November 2009 and 10 December 2009 with enclosures, copies of
which are attached. The Board also considered your counsel's
letter dated 16 February 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. In this connection, the Board substantially
concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinions.
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. The Board could not find, in
the Chief of Naval Operations Action Memo for the Secretary of
the Navy dated 3 August 2007, any statement that you failed to
report a "violent crime," though it did state you failed to
report a "sexual assault." Finally, the Board was unable to
find your service was s& exemplary that you should have been
promoted, notwithstanditig the matters on which your removal from
the promotion list was based. 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.
Tt 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,
La on$
W. DEAN P ER
Executive etor
Enclosures
Copy to:
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 | 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 | CY2009 | 04984-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 2009. The Board was unable to find that the command's correspondence with MMPR-2 dated 4 December 2005, recommending a four-month delay of your promotion, was based on anything other than the NUP, noting that the appeal of your NUP was not denied until 1 December 2005. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11528-09
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 | CY2010 | 08895-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 January 2011. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09849-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 March 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel’ Command undated and dated 10 December 2009 with enclosures, copies of which are 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 | CY2008 | 12242-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 June 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 | 12430-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 June 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 28 January 2010 with enclosures, a copy of which is attached, and your letter dated 19 May 2010 with enclosures. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06189-00
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command, dated 22 November 2000, 15 February and 11 June 2001, and the Medical Corps Officer Community Manager dated 26 April 2001, copies of which are attached.The Board also considered your counsel’s letters dated 17 April and 18 September 2001. evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. However, this evidence, by itself, did not establish...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06748-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 June 2009. 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 2803-07), your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...