Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05438-10
Original file (05438-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

BIG
Docket No: 5438-10
13 August 2010

,
Zee, |
— ee,

Ee

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 a
application on 12 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 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 report of the Headquarters Marine Corps
Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 13 May 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 injustice. In this connection, the Board
substantially concurred with the comments contained in the
report of the PERB. 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 cage 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,
lho Sk
W. Les
Executive r
Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01974-11

    Original file (01974-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested that the fitness report for 13 June 2009 to 16 March 2010 be removed and that the report for 17 March to 30 June 2010 be removed or modified to make it “not observed.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 April 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06400-10

    Original file (06400-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 August 2010. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 8 June 2010, 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 | 09496-10

    Original file (09496-10.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. 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 | 12181-09

    Original file (12181-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Specifically, cmc has directed removing, from section I (reporting senior's “Directed and Additional Comments”), “Directed Comment, Sect [ion] A, 8F: MRO [Marine reported on] was assigned to the Body Composition Program (BCP) during this reporting period.” and from section K.4 (reviewing officer’s comments), “due to her assignment to BCP.” By electronic mail dated 10 March 2010, a copy of which is attached, the staff of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) advised Headquarters...

  • 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 | CY2009 | 12712-09

    Original file (12712-09.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. 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 material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5191 14

    Original file (NR5191 14.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 August 5014. The Board also considered copies of the HOMC memorandum dated 17 March 2010 directing removal of your fitness 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00462-10

    Original file (00462-10.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 | CY2014 | NR9956 14

    Original file (NR9956 14.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 November 2014. 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR10589 14

    Original file (NR10589 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Orr THE WAVY F Ee : CORRECTION OF NAVAL RE CORDS uu INGTON, VA 22204-2420 JSR Docket No: NR10589-14 4 Decemper 2014 Dear Colonel ee * : 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 L552 » You requested % that the fitness report for 7 December 2009 to 21 July 2010 be modified by removing the entire section K (reviewing officer’s (RO’S) marks and comments) . New evidence is evidence not...