Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02783-10
Original file (02783-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DS 20370-5100 -

 

RDZ:ecb
Docket No. 02783-10
11 August 2010

 

This ig 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 10
August 2010. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed
in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures
applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary evidence
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 letter, from Headquarters Marine Corps dated
30 September 2008 as well as the decision of the Navy Discharge Review
Board (NDRB) dated 24 January 2008 copies of which are enclosed.

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 Marine Corps letter as well as the conclusions of
law and fact set forth in the decision of NDRB. .

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,

W. DEAN PFERLP
Executive Dihhkettico

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12840-09

    Original file (12840-09.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 May 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion, from Headquarters Marine Corps dated 8 December 2009 as well as the decision of the Navy Discharge Review Board (NDRB) dated 16 December 2008, copies of both are enclosed. Consequentiy, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11693-10

    Original file (11693-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You also requested that the service record page 11 counseling entry dated 21 November 2008 be modified by deleting the following: Your demonstrated lack of maturity, judgment and decision making abilities, specifically your inappropriate sexual relationship with a CPL [corporal] [pay grade E=-4}(fthen a PFC [private first class) [pay grade E-2] when it started). A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00180-10

    Original file (00180-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report by removing from section I (reporting senior (RS)’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “{You have] the potential to be a well rounded SNCO [staff noncommissioned officer] .” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 April 2010. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated 19 January 2010 with...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02226-10

    Original file (02226-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 July 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 | 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 | CY2010 | 00093-10

    Original file (00093-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing both contested fitness reports. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 March 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 | CY2010 | 00454-10

    Original file (00454-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 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. 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 | 06106-09

    Original file (06106-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 October 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable. 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 | 00472-10

    Original file (00472-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 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. 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 | 00400-10

    Original file (00400-10.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 did not consider whether your characterization of service or reason for separation should be changed, since you did not request such consideration and you have not exhausted your administrative remedies by applying to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB). Consequently, when...