Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00680-10
Original file (00680-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

Docket No: 680-10
19 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.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 27 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.

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.

The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy Reserve on 14
February 2006. Under the terms of your enlistment contract, you
were required to participate in 48 drills and perform 14 days of
active duty for training (ACDUTRA) each year.

On 2 March 2007 your commanding officer recommended that you be
separated with a general discharge by reason of unsatisfactory
participation due to your failure to attend regularly scheduled
drilis. After review by the discharge authority, the
recommendation for separation was approved and on 21 March 2007
you received a general discharge.

The Board did not accept your unsubstantiated contention to the
effect you never enlisted in the Navy Reserve, and that your
signature on an enlistment document dated 14 February 2006 is a
forgery. 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,

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05445-10

    Original file (05445-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 October 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. The ADB found that you had unsatisfactory participation and recommended a general discharge.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00326-10

    Original file (00326-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 September 2010. Since your discharge is less than 15 years old, you may have it reviewed by the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB). 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 | 00590-10

    Original file (00590-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 October 2010. Since your discharge is less than 15 years old, you may apply to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) for a possible upgrade. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the exjystence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02275-09

    Original file (02275-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 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. Your record contains an enlisted performance evaluation for the period from 16 March 2006 to 15 Mareh 2007 in which you received an overall trait...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02633-10

    Original file (02633-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 January 2011. On 9 March 2007 your commanding officer recommended an administrative separation by reason of unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve due to failure to maintain medical readiness as evidenced by noncompliance with TNPQ status update requirements. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05529-09

    Original file (05529-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Under the terms of your enlistment contract, you were required to participate in 48 drills and perform 14 days of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) each year. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08043-08

    Original file (08043-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 dune 2009. This action certainly suggests that there was a basis for the separation processing. 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 | 10854-09

    Original file (10854-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval | Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 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 applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00290-10

    Original file (00290-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 October 2010. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you were not physically qualified for release from active duty on 2 October 2008, or that you were unfit for duty by reason of physical disability on 27 May 2009, when you were discharged by reason of physical fitness assessment failure, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10383-09

    Original file (10383-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered: your application on 14 April 2010. On 19 June 2008, the Bureau of Naval Personnel Command (PERS-911) stated in a letter that you acquired insufficient points and were required to inform them of your intentions to resolve your status. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...