Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11647-09
Original file (11647-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

HD: hd
Docket No. 11647-09
143 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 that the date
of your discharge from the Naval Reserve be changed from 31 July
1998 to 12 February 1995 or, if that change is not approved,
November 1996; and that your failures of selection by the Fiscal

Year 97 and 98 Reserve Line Lieutenant Commander Selection
Boards be removed.

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
Teguimbtene 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
15 December 2009, a copy of which is attached. The Board also
considered your letters dated a February 2010 and 16 February
2010 wirth 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 opinion.
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
maval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the

‘existence of probable material error or injustice.

Sincerely,

   

W. DEAN PFE F
Executive D

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12430-09

    Original file (12430-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 | CY2009 | 12202-09

    Original file (12202-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You request promotion to lieutenant commander with an effective date of 24 July 2009. AR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 2010. 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 | 01486-10

    Original file (01486-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 August 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 31 March 2010, a copy of which ig 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 | 07641-09

    Original file (07641-09.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, the Board’s file on your previous case, 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...

  • 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 | 12388-09

    Original file (12388-09.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 2610. 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 material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12528-09

    Original file (12528-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material. 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 | 05367-10

    Original file (05367-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 March 2011. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 24 June 2010 with e-mail dated 16 June 2010 and 27 and 29 September 2010, 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 | CY2010 | 10794-10

    Original file (10794-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 January 2011. in addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 26 October 2010, a copy of whichis 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.