DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
DIC
‘Docket No. 10268-09
23 Feb 10
‘This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 22 February 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, your naval record and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the
advisory opinion furnished by NPC Memo dtd 16 Dec 09, a copy of
which is attached.
The Board notes that you have applied for a correction to your
record for an error that allegedly occurred more than ten years
ago. Under the rules governing this Board, an application for a
correction of a naval record must be made within three years
after the discovery of the alleged error. Failure to file
within the prescribed three years may be excused only in cases
where the Board finds that it is in the interests of justice to
do so.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that it is not in the interests of
justice to excuse the three year time limit in your particular
case. The Board also concurred with the comments contained in
the advisory opinion to the effect that your claim should be
barred by the the Barring Act. Additionally, the Board found
that your application is barred by the common law doctrine of
laches. Laches is a legal doctrine that essentially states that
a right or claim will not be allowed if a delay in asserting the
right or claim has prejudiced another party. Laches is based on
the legal maxim that equity aids the vigilant and not those who
procrastinate regarding their rights. In your case, you
neglected to assert your claim for an inordinately long period
of time without justification. You have provided no evidence as
to why you.did not seek to have the alleged error corrected
earlier. 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 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,
Ly Quad
W. DEAN PF
Executive Direstor
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00478-09
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. Under the rules governing this Board, an application for a correction of a. naval record must be made within three years after the discovery of the alleged error. Laches is a legal doctrine that essentially states that a right or claim will not be allowed if a delay in asserting the right or...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07001-10
s A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered the allegations contained in your application on 8 November 2010. 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. CNO Code N130 has been unable to find evidence that would substantiate your claim that an error occurred in 1988.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02904-10
Under the rules governing this Board, an application for a correction of a naval record must be made within three years after the discovery of the alleged error. And no application for correction was received by this Board until March 2010. Review of the available records in your case has revealed that, due to the passage of time, much of the documentation pertaining to the prior adjudication of your claims for reimbursement no longer exists. Under these circumstances, the Board found that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07055-10
Those administrative measures must be exhausted before any action can be taken by this Board. Laches is a legal doctrine that essentially states that a claim will not be allowed if a delay in asserting the claim has prejudiced another party. Accordingly, it is particularly important in your case to provide DFAS with evidence that supports your claim that you are entitled to back pay and that you provide an explanation as to why you neglected to assert this claim for so long.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10034-08
You now allege, essentially, (a) that you “do not remember declining” FSGLI coverage, (b) that your participation in FSGLI was stopped in error and (c) you should therefore be entitled to FSGLI benefits based on iaeippgp a ; ate. Also, under the rules governing this Board, there is a presumption that the records are correct and, thus, there is a presumption that the action taken by the Marine Corps to stop your participation in FSGLI in 2002 was correct. Additionally, the Board noted that...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The applicant is requesting he be promoted to A3C (E-2) earlier than 1 Feb 55, the date he was promoted. The applicant enlisted 25 Aug 53 in the grade of Airman Basic (E-l), was promoted to A3C (E-2) 1 Feb 55, promoted to A2C (E-3) 1 Jun 56, promoted to A1C (E-4) 1 Sep 59 (A1C (E-4) redesignated Sgt (Ed)), and to SSgt (E-5) 1 Dec 68.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01521-09
Thus, students entering HPSP after 15 September 1981 are not, under the law, entitled to the constructive service credit benefit enjoyed by their predecessors. In the late 1980's, some officers, such as yourself, who entered HPSP after 15 September 1981, submitted applications to this Board seeking a change that would show that they entered HPSP before 15 September 1981. Moreover, the documents you submitted did not persuade the Board that your recruiter provided you with erroneous...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00080
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00080 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the grades of senior master sergeant (E-8) and chief master sergeant (E-9). The applicant did not file within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2004-094
from his CO to the Board. THE APPLICANT'S MILITARY RECORD On October 7, 1974, the applicant enlisted in the regular Coast Guard with the In BCMR No 2003-058, the Coast Guard and the Board indicated that many of the documents from the applicant's time on active duty in the Coast Guard were not included in the military record they received. Upon reconsideration of all of the evidence, including the applicant's complete military record, this Board finds that the applicant's DD Form 214 is in...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01196
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. They believe that supervisors and commanding officers at the time were in a better position to evaluate the applicant’s potential and eligibility for promotion, and the applicant’s delay regarding a matter now dating back over 62 years has greatly complicated their ability to determine the merits of his position. The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or...