Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04055-10
Original file (04055-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
Cai
Se

 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

       

=

HD :hd
Docket No. 04055-10
11 February 2011

 

eee

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

10 February 2011. 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 and
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the
Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Office of the
Chief of Naval Operations dated 10 June 2010, a copy of which is
attached.

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 Ifiuetice. tL
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 entitledto 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,

La Nison’

W. DEAN PFE
Executive i

 
 
 

 

 

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 06205-11

    Original file (06205-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 September 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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 11 July 2011, a copy of which is attached.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00219-11

    Original file (00219-11.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 August 2011. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) dated 4 February 2011, 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 | CY2010 | 10711-10

    Original file (10711-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 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 | 11845-10

    Original file (11845-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested removing the fitness report for 1 February to 9 June 2003. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 May 2011 and completed its deliberations on 11 August 2011. 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 | CY2011 | 04046-11

    Original file (04046-11.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 August 2011. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00581-11

    Original file (00581-11.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 September 2011. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 3 February and 1 March 2011, copies of which are 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 | CY2011 | 04836-11

    Original file (04836-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 February 2012. 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 any event, the Board was unable to find that this order, which directed you not to contact your wife without prior approval, was an illegal...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 13125-10

    Original file (13125-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 2011. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) dated 18 January 2011 with enclosure and the NPC e-mail dated 1 March 2011, copies of which are 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 | CY2009 | 12202-09

    Original file (12202-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You request promotion to lieutenant commander with an effective date of 24 July 2009. AR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 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 | CY2011 | 04132-11

    Original file (04132-11.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 November 2011. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 3 May 2011 with attachment, 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.