Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00741-10
Original file (00741-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

BJG
Docket No: 741-10
9 March 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, in effect, flight pay from 1 May 2005 to 14
November 2008.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 9 March 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 your prior case file, docket number 363-08.

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 was
unwilling to create the fiction that you served in a flight
status from 1 May 2005 to 14 November 2008. 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,

Luc.

W. DEAN PF
Executive Dw. tor

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11168-10

    Original file (11168-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board's file on your prior case (docket number 4974-10), your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. However, the Board particularly noted the figures provided in paragraph 3 of the advisory opinion, as well as the uncontested derogatory service record page 11 entries dated 14 November 1993 and 21 March, 24 March and 15 November...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02786-07

    Original file (02786-07.rtf) 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.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You enlisted in the Navy on 17 June 2002 at age 17 and served without disciplinary incident.On 2 March...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02809-07

    Original file (02809-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 February 2008. SECNAV, the discharge authority, approved the foregoing recommendations and directed discharge under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct, and on 31 July 2006 you were so separated. The Board noted that the NUP, punitive letter of reprimand, and SECNAV directed actions for discharge by reason of misconduct, and the recouping of educational...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02548-09

    Original file (02548-09.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. The Board thus concluded that there is no error or injustice in your reenlistment code. 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 | 04094-10

    Original file (04094-10.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 February 2011. 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 VA rating officials who made that award found no objective evidence in your naval health record that was pertinent to your claim, and they...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08487-10

    Original file (08487-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted im 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. Since the Board found insufficient basis to remove your failure of selection by the FY 2011...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05144-09

    Original file (05144-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 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. You were reactivated in the Marine Corps from 14 July 2004 to 15 March 2005, in support of Operation Noble Eagle/Enduring Freedom, in which you...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03844-07

    Original file (03844-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 August 2008. In addition, the Board considered the reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 24 April 2007 and 11 March 2008, and the advisory opinion from the HOMC Military Law Branch, Judge Advocate Division (JAM3), dated 4 September 2007, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04642-08

    Original file (04642-08.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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 19 June 2008, 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07307-10

    Original file (07307-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 November 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...