DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX ‘
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
HD :hd
Docket No. 12528-09
25 February 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 removal of your
Failure of selection by the Fiscal Year 2008 Line Captain
Selection Board and consideration by a special selection board
with an Officer Summary Record not marked to reflect you had an
approved retirement.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 25 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 and applicable statutes, regulations and
policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory
opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 11 January
2010 with enclosures, a COpy of which is attached. The Board
also considered your letter dated 31 January 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. Concerning your contention of a violation
of Department of Defense Instruction 1320.14, paragraph
6.1.3.2., the Board particularly noted you gave no indication of
what comments, if any, you would have made, had you been
afforded an opportunity to provide written comment about your
approved retirement. Therefore, even if you are correct that
the instruction was violated, the Board was unable to find it
was a material error that harmed your chances for selection.
The Board found that your having an approved retirement was
information the promotion board needed to know and, therefore,
it was proper for that information to have been provided.
Finally, the Board found that annotating your approved
retirement on your OSR did not unduly emphasize it, nor did it
preclude your selection. 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 .
@ 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,
ROBERT D. SALMAN
Acting Executive Director
Enclosure
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 | 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 | 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 | CY2009 | 11647-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval “Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 March 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory Opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 15 December 2009, a copy of which is attached. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12202-09
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 | CY2010 | 09830-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 February 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 | CY2009 | 03574-09
Finally, you impliedly requested removing the service record page 13 ("Administrative Remarks") entry dated 25 July 2008 and documentation of your removal from the Fiscal Year (FY) 09 Active Duty Chief Petty Officer Selection Board List.. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 December 2009, Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01486-10
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 | CY2010 | 08895-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 January 2011. 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 | CY2007 | 00685-07
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 Board found your not having been selected for promotion to CW04 did not justify reversing its previous action. 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...