Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11264-09
Original file (11264-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

HD: hd
Docket No. 11264-09
18 June 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.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June
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 opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated

10 December 2005, 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 advisory
opinion, except the recommendation to remove the enlisted
performance evaluation report for 16 March to 22 August 2006, as it
4s more favorable than the contested report ending 21 August 2006,
and you did not request its removal. 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,

Rea

W. DEAN PFRI
Executive i ©

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05864-09

    Original file (05864-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 April 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 | CY2009 | 13204-09

    Original file (13204-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 April 2010. Pocumentary 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 | CY2009 | 04501-09

    Original file (04501-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2010 | 11845-10

    Original file (11845-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested removing the fitness report for 1 February to 9 June 2003. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 May 2011 and completed its deliberations on 11 August 2011. 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 | CY2006 | 01496-06

    Original file (01496-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You further impliedly requested removing all documentation of your nonjudicial punishment (NJP) of 22 June 2005 and the vacation of suspension of your reduction to pay grade E-4 on 19 August 2005.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, consideredyour application on 7 December 2006. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10348-10

    Original file (10348-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 21 January 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your letter, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board's files on your prior cases, docket numbers 07328-08 and 04025-10, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11456-08

    Original file (11456-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your. application on 7 May 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00808-09

    Original file (00808-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory | opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 25 February 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 | 11528-09

    Original file (11528-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2009 | 04173-09

    Original file (04173-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 February 2010. 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 material error or injustice.