Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06192-10
Original file (06192-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

BUG
Docket No: 6192-10
13 January 2011

 

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 13 January 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, your naval record and applicable
statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board
considered the advisory opinion from Headquarters Marine Corps
(HOMC), dated 30 June 2010 with enclosures, a copy of which is
attached. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated
3 November 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 from HQMC. Since the Board found insufficient
basis to remove either of your failures of selection by the
Fiscal Year 2005 and 2011 Reserve Major Selection Boards, it
had no grounds to set aside your discharge from the Marine
Corps Reserve on 1 December 2010. 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,

Sy oaeedd
W. DEAN E
Executive ctor

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12852-09

    Original file (12852-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 January 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 | 09126-10

    Original file (09126-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested promotion to master gunnery sergeant (pay grade E-9}) from the Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 Reserve Master Gunnery Sergeant Selection 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, and the Board’s file on your prior case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01239-10

    Original file (01239-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 | 09717-10

    Original file (09717-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You also impliedly requested, in the event of your promotion to master sergeant before the date of your transfer to the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve, 30 September 2009, that your retired grade be changed from gunnery sergeant to master sergeant. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 March 2011. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the: burden is on the applicant...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08545-10

    Original file (08545-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 April 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 material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06750-10

    Original file (06750-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 March 2011. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions from Headquarters Marine Corps dated 20 September, 29 October and 29 December 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 | 06111-10

    Original file (06111-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 2011. The Board also considered the advisory opinions from the Marine Corps Recruiting Command Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, dated 13 August and 28 December 2010, and the letter from this Board, dated 20 January 2011 with enclosures, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04892-10

    Original file (04892-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested special selection board (SSB) consideration for the Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 through 2001 Marine Corps Reserve (Active Reserve) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards or, in the alternative, promotion to lieutenant colonel with the date of rank and effective date you would have been assigned, had you been promoted pursuant to selection by the FY 1997 promotion board. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your h...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 13803-10

    Original file (13803-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 May 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. 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...