DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
HD:ha
Docket No. 13099-09
22 January 2010
AL eae
This is in reference to your application dated 14 December 2007
with attachments 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 22 January 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 the Bureau of Naval Personnel
dated 28 February 2008, a copy of which is attached. The Board
also considered your letter dated 24 April 2008, e-mail dated
‘10 September 2008 with attachment and e-mail dated 10 December
2009 with attachments (including the Assistant Secretary of the
Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) (ASN (M&RA)) letter dated 20
October 2009), and the Chief of Naval Personnel letter dated 20
July 2009 (reference (c) to the ASN (M&RA) letter dated 20
October 2009).
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 agreed with
the advisory opinion in concluding the NAVPERS 1221/6 dated
15 March 2007 adequately supported the removal of your Navy
Enlisted Classification (NEC) Code 5337 (master explosive
ordnance disposal). 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,
\a Dew &
Executive Div¥e
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03184-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 January 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the appiicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02756-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2008. On 21 June 2007, you officially received your retirement orders at the retirement grade of 0-5 (commander) . Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change to your retirement grade due to the seriousness of your misconduct and found no legal error or injustice in your case.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05149-99
M&RA noted specifically that Petitioner's relationship with the On 23 June 1999, the petty officer Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) (ASN(M&RA)) directed Petitioner's discharge with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) character of service. this relief is neither available Accordingly, a Petitioner supports his request for an honorable characterization of service with essentially four arguments: b. one, his discharge was improper because it was not based on...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9808707
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 the Navy Personnel Command dated 15 April 1999, a copy of which is attached. Therefore, at the time the fitness report was signed by the reporting senior, the reporting senior had no way of knowing that the member...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 07087-11
d. The Petitioner filed a Complaint of Wrongs regarding his denial of retention on active duty and being discharged from the Navy. In other words, JAG/AL specifically recommended that - ASN(M&RA), acting for the Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV), make the determination to correct the record, vice this Board, if warranted. On 15 July 2011, after review of the Complaint of Wrongs by ASN(M&RA), the Board was directed to review the Complaint of Wrongs and provide a recommendation to correct the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09850-06
References (b) through (d), in effect at the time of Petitioner’s transfer, reference the plenary authority of the Secretary of the Navy to transfer a member to the Fleet Reserve in a reduced paygrade. Regulations in effect at the time of Petitioner’s transfer reference the plenary authority of SECNAV to transfer a member to the Fleet Reserve in a reduced paygrade. On 7 January 2004, Petitioner, a chief petty officer (E-7), was authorized by ASN(M&RA) to transfer to the Fleet Reserve,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09809-09
You further requested that these reports, as well as the report for 31 October 2007 to 30 June 2008, be modified by adding, to section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “MRO [Marine reported on] meets Physical Evaluation criteria in MCO [Marine Corps Order] 6100.12, and is within standards.” Finally, you requested removing your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year 2010 Active Reserve Colonel Selection Board, and granting you special selection board consideration...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08019-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 January 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions from Headquarters Marine Corps, dated 11 March and 19 November 2009 with enclosures, 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 material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 13280-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 2011. In light of the e-mail dated 20 December 2010, the Board was unable to find an adverse version of the fitness report for 1 June 2006 to 30 June 2007 was in your record considered by the FY 2009 Major Selection Board. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06237-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 September 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. In your application, you are requesting that the record be corrected to shows that you were eligible for sanctuary protection under the provisions of Title 10...