Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11347-09
Original file (11347-09.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. 11347-09
25 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 24 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 opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) dated
1 and 15 December 2009, copies of which are attached. The Board also
considered your letter dated 3 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. Accordingly, your appiication
has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel
will be furnished upon request.

Your letter of 3 February 2010 requested an additional 60 days to
submit a revised statement to your fitness report for 20 January 2007
to 29 February 2008, but no revised statement has been received. At

such time as you are ready to submit a revised statement, you should
forward it to NPC (PERS-32). If it is determined to be acceptable
for file, it will be added to your record without further action by
this Board.

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,

Ls Quay

W. DEAN PF
Executive r

Enclosures

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03701-11

    Original file (03701-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board also considered your counsel’s letters dated 11 November 2010 and 22 April 2011 with enclosure. Since the Board still found no defect in your fitness report record, it had no basis to recommend your advancement to either pay grade E-8 or E-9,. In view of the above, the Board again voted to deny relief.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 13125-10

    Original file (13125-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 2011. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) dated 18 January 2011 with enclosure and the NPC e-mail dated 1 March 2011, 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04473-09

    Original file (04473-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    BR 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 | CY2011 | 04046-11

    Original file (04046-11.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 August 2011. 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. 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 | CY1998 | 05732-98

    Original file (05732-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The member's requested a letter supplement be the promotion recommendation. Only the reporting senior who signed the original fitness report may submit supplementary material for file in the member's record.

  • 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 | CY2010 | 03625-10

    Original file (03625-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 10020-09

    Original file (10020-09.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 (NPC) dated 22 October 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 | CY2010 | 06708-10

    Original file (06708-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 October 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 | 00722-09

    Original file (00722-09.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 NPC dated 16 March 2009 with enclosure, 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.