Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03625-10
Original file (03625-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5190

 

HD: hd
Docket No. 03625-1060
25 April 2010

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
maval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the
United States Code, section 1552.

You requested removal of all correspondence and actions
associated with the delay of your promotion to commander and
removal from the Fiscal Year (FY) 04 Line Commander Promotion
List; promotion to commander with a date of rank and effective
date of 1 March 2004; change of your retired grade from
lieutenant commander to commander; removal of the fitness
reports for 1 November 2002 to 31 October 2003 and 1 November
2003 to 13 October 2004; by implication, removal of your
failures of selection by the FY 07, 08 and 09 Line Commander
Selection Boards; and investigation of the reporting senior's
actions. Your request for investigation of the reporting
Senior's actions was not considered, as the Board for Correction
of Naval Records is not an investigative body.

A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session,
considered your application on 22 April 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 the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy
Personnel Command (NPC), dated 17 November 2008 with enclosures
and 6 April 2009, and the Office of the Judge Advocate General
dated 29 September 2009 with enclosure, copies of which are
attached. The Board also considered the NPC e-mail dated 3
September 2009 with attachment (DD Form 214), a copy of which is
attached, and your letters dated 20 August 2009 with enclosures,
30 October 2009 and 2 February 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. In this connection, the Board substantially
goncurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinions.
The Board found the action to remove you from the promotion list
was adequately supported without the charges of which you were
acquitted. The Board did not find it objectionable that the
Director of the NPC Career Progression -Division submitted the
letter of 1 September 2004 requesting that the delay of your
promotion be extended. Finally, the Board was unable to find
that the reporting senior improperly influenced the actions
taken in your case, or that he had a personal vendetta against
you. In view of the above, 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,

Lo Mand \
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Di r

Enclosures

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11528-09

    Original file (11528-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 April 2010. The Board particularly noted that on 8 February 2007, you submitted a copy of the report ending 31 October 2006 to the FY 08 Line Commander Selection Board, convened on 13 February 2007. 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 | 12430-09

    Original file (12430-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 June 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 28 January 2010 with enclosures, a copy of which is attached, and your letter dated 19 May 2010 with enclosures. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • 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 | CY2011 | 03147-11

    Original file (03147-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Petitioner further requested removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) entry dated 19 March 2008, a copy of which is at Tab F. Finally, he requested setting aside the Commandant Of the Marine Corps (CMC)'s revocation dated 8 July 2008 of his selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 First Sergeant Selection Board and promoting him to first sergeant with the lineal precedence he would have had, but for the revocation. The PERB report at enclosure (2) stated that...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10084-06

    Original file (10084-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board also considered your counsel’s letters dated 15 December 2006 and 4 July 2007, each with enclosure. The Board considered the error, if any, in having allowed the FY 2007 Line Captain Selection Board to review your letter to the promotion board after the convening date was harmless as it was in your favor. 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 | CY2007 | 09639-07

    Original file (09639-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by removing the fitness report for 12 September 2003 to 8 June 2004, a copy of which is at Tab A; removing her failures of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 06, 07 and 08 Line Captain Selection Boards; and granting her a special selection board for the FY 06 Line Captain...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 9639-07

    Original file (9639-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by removing the fitness report for 12 September 2003 to 8 June 2004, a copy of which is at Tab A; removing her failures of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 06, 07 and 08 Line Captain Selection Boards; and granting her a special selection board for the FY 06 Line Captain...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9807421

    Original file (NC9807421.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    d. In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) office having cognizance over fitness report matters has commented that in view of the results of the DODIG investigation, they recommend that the fitness report in question be removed from Petitioner's record. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing therefrom the following fitness report and related material: Period of Report Date of Report Reporting Senior From To 96Augi6 950ct31 96Aug16 b. ...

  • 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 | CY2009 | 10693-09

    Original file (10693-09.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.