DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DG 20370-5100
HD:hd
Docket No. 09849-09
12 March 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, in effect, that the removal of your name from the
dune 2007 and Fiscal Year (FY) 09S Active Duty Navy Lieutenant
All-~Fully-Qualified-Officers Lists (AFQOL's} be declared void;
that you be reinstated to the June 2007 AFOOL; that you be
promoted, in accordance with your selection for promotion by the
June 2007 Active Duty Navy Lieutenant All-Fully-Qualified-
Officers selection review, with back pay and benefits; that all
documentation of and references to your removal from the June
2007 and FY 09 AFQOL’s be removed from your record; and by
implication, that your resignation of your commission on 31
December 2009 and reversion to enlisted status be set aside.
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 undated and
dated 10 December 2009 with enclosures, copies of which are
attached. The Board also considered your counsel's letter dated
16 February 2010 with attachments.
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
reports of promotion boards, under title 10, United States Code,
gection 618, rather than from promotion lists, under title 10,
United States Code, section 629. The Board was likewise unable
to find your service was so exemplary that you should have been
promoted, notwithstanding the matters on which your removal from
the promotion lists 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.
‘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, ae
Lud
W. DEAN PF
Executive ector
Enclosures
Copy to:
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07700-10
07700-10 22 October 2010 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records TO; Secretary of the Navy REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Ref : (a} 10 U.S.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by removing all documentation of his removal from the Fiscal Year (FY) 09 Active Duty Navy Lieutenant All-Fully-Qualified- Officers List (AFQOL), a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04501-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 February 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...
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 | 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 | 10693-09
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 | CY2007 | 01198-07
This advisory opinion recommended reconsideration of the applicants’ records, on the basis of the understanding that SECNAV had removed them from their AFQOL’s without knowledge that two of the other officers involved in the same matter had been promoted, and in the belief that only one of the three applicants’ NJP’s had been set aside.h. Counsel argued that these delays were actually based on the NJP’s that have been set aside.k. Finally, the Board notes the applicants were promoted to...
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 | 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 | CY2007 | 01199-07
This advisory opinion recommended reconsideration of the applicants’ records, on the basis of the understanding that SECNAV had removed them from their AFQOL’s without knowledge that two of the other officers involved in the same matter had been promoted, and in the belief that only one of the three applicants’ NJP’s had been set aside. j- In enclosure (5), counsel further advised that each of the three applicants had received a letter dated 24 April 2007 from NPC informing them that their...
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...