DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No. 00260-10
6 May 2010
a s usar
This is in reference: to your application dated 6 January 2010,
seeking reconsideration of your previous application for
correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of ©
title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552. ‘Your previous
‘case, docket number 09366-08, was denied on 18 December 2008.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on
6 May 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
current application, together with all material submitted in
support thereof, the Board's file on your prior case, your naval
record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In.
addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions from .
Headquarters Marine Corps dated 16 February 2010 with reference
(a) and 29 March 2010, copies of which are attached.
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
dated 29 March 2010. The Board did not agree with the
recommendation, in the advisory opinion dated 16 February 2010,
to modify the contested counseling entry by removing *Violation
of Art[icle] 92 [Uniform Code of Military Justice] (The Privacy
Act of 1974),” as it did not consider the error concerned to be
a material error warranting corrective action. In view of the
above, the Board again voted to deny relief. 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,
W. DEAN PF
Executive Diyetyor
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03701-11
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 | 10880-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 2011. 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. 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
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 | CY2011 | 01445-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your case on 18 August 2011. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions from Headquarters Marine Corps, dated 24 March 2011 and 6 July 2011 with enclosure, and the Marine Corps Recruiting Command dated 31 March 2011, copies of which are attached, and your letter dated 4 August 2011. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 12000-08
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 22 January 2009 and 26 February 2009 with enclosures, copies of which are attached. In this regard, the Board noted that the favorable advisory opinion dated 22 January 2009 did not acknowledge the information reflected in enclosures (2), (3), (4) and (9) of the advisory opinion dated 26 February 2009. Reserve Affairs reiterates (as previously stated in the advisory opinion dated 16 May...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07018-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 April 2011. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 20 August 2010 and 14 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 material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02203-10
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, and the Board's files on your prior cases (docket numbers 8653-01, 1685-06 and 10858- 08). The Board also considered your counsel's rebuttal letter dated 1 April 2010 with enclosures. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04025-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 5 August 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 1 June 2010, 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 | CY2009 | 07641-09
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 | 07624-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 19 February 2010. The Board found the removal of that entry from your record did not completely invalidate the contested fitness report, which has been modified by removing all reference to the entry. In this regard, the report as it now appears in your Official Military Personnel File properly reflects all the corrections directed by the report of the PERB dated 22...