Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02688-10
Original file (02688-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 HD: hd
Docket No. 02688-10

21 October 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

21 October 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 1n support thereof, your naval
record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. ‘ta
addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the
Navy Personnel Command dated 25 August 2010 with attachments, a copy
of which is attached. The Board also considered your letter dated
29 September 2010 with attachments.

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. 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

 

@
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BS
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 P
Executive

 

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09783-10

    Original file (09783-10.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 January 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. 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 | 10348-10

    Original file (10348-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 21 January 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your letter, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board's files on your prior cases, docket numbers 07328-08 and 04025-10, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10612-10

    Original file (10612-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your previous case, docket number 018976-10, was denied on 2 September 2010. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 6 October 2011. In addition; the Board considered the e-mail advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) dated 21 September 2010 with attachments and the National Naval Medical Center (NNMC) Bethesda dated 22 August 2011 with attachment, copies of which are attached.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02535-10

    Original file (02535-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 September 2010. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion, but noted PRIMS reflects no BCA conducted on 8 May 2009 (it shows you were medically waived from the BCA conducted on 15 October 2009). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08895-10

    Original file (08895-10.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 January 2011. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00483-10

    Original file (00483-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 16 February 2010 with enclosures, 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 | 04501-09

    Original file (04501-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

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

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11264-09

    Original file (11264-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 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 injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09992-09

    Original file (09992-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    7 ae A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 March 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06708-10

    Original file (06708-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    R 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 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...