DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX .
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BIG
Docket No: 4156-10
2 August 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 29 July 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 opinion from Headquarters Marine Corps,
dated 19 May 2010, a copy of which is attached. The Board also
considered your rebuttal letter dated 16 June 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 concurred with the comments contained in the
advisory opinion. Your subsequent exemplary service and the
letter of 29 March 2010 from the officer who awarded the
contested counseling entry dated 30 March 2006, requesting that
the entry be removed, did not persuade the Board that the entry
was unwarranted. 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,
\ Nous
W. DEAN P
Executive Rj or
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07876-10
You initially requested that your record be corrected by removing your service from 1 September 1999 to 10 March 2002. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 8 September 2010 with reference (b) and 21 October 2010, 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 | CY2010 | 00260-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 6 May 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your current application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board's file on your prior case, 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01239-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 April 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion from Headquarters Marine Corps dated 22 March 2010, a copy of which is attached, and your letter dated 9 April 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 probable material error...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05367-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 March 2011. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 24 June 2010 with e-mail dated 16 June 2010 and 27 and 29 September 2010, 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 | CY2014 | NR12003 14
The Board also considered a COPY of your fitness report for 15 January to 2 October 2010, whose removal was directed by the HOMC Performance Evaluation Review Board, and the HOMC e-mail dated 21 November 2014 (the basis for the PERB action), a COPY of which is also attached. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08531-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 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 | CY2011 | 01445-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your case on 18 August 2011. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions from Headquarters Marine Corps, dated 24 March 2011 and 6 July 2011 with enclosure, and the Marine Corps Recruiting Command dated 31 March 2011, copies of which are attached, and your letter dated 4 August 2011. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11517-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 Aprii 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with alli 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 | CY2008 | 08727-08
zB three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 2010. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 11 February 2009, the advisory opinion from the HOMC Enlisted Promotion Section (MMPR-2), dated 10 June 2009, and the advisory opinion from the HOMC Military Awards Branch (MMMA~3), dated 4 January 2010, copies of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11523-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 July 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 2 December 2009 and 30 March 2010 with attachments and the Memorandum for the Record dated 29 June 2010, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...