Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 13167-09
Original file (13167-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

HD: hd
Docket No. 13167-09
25 February 2010

   

aah e

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 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. Docunientary 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 gonsidered the advisory
opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 20 January
2010, a copy of which ig attached. The Board also considered
your letters dated 15 and 17 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 opinion.
Concerning your objection that the contested fitness report did
not mention your diagnosed medical condition, the Board noted .
you mentioned that jn your statement to the report dated

20 April 2007, which does not appear in your record with the
report at issue. T£ you want your statement filed, you may
submit it to the Navy Personnel Command (PERS-32), via the

reporting senior, with an explanation for submission over two
years after the end of the reporting period. The Board duly
noted the evidence you submitted to show the medical condition
was later corrected, but found this did not invalidate the
report in question. 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
gythe 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,
IRD Fm
ROBERT D> ZSALMAN

Acting Executive Director

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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | CY2002 | 08091-02

    Original file (08091-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The reporting senior states the member was issued a Letter of Instruction.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11347-09

    Original file (11347-09.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 opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) dated 1 and 15 December 2009, 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 | 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 | CY2009 | 07385-09

    Original file (07385-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 February 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 28 August and 15 September 2009, 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 | 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...