Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06527-10
Original file (06527-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

HD:hd
Docket No. 06527-10
3 March 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.

You requested that the enlisted performance evaluation report for
16 June to 22 October 2007 be modified by removing reference to a
nonjudicial punishment of 16 October 2007 and raising the mark in
block 36 ("Military Bearing/Character”) from “2.0" (fourth best of
five possible marks) to “3.0” (third best), and that you be awarded
the Good Conduct Medal as of 25 January 2010.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March
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 opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated
15 July and 17 August 2010, copies of which are 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 advisory opinions in concluding that the performance
evaluation report in question should not be modified. Since the

Board found no defect in your record, it had no basis to award you
the Good Conduct Medal as of 25 January 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,

 

Enclosures

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03202-11

    Original file (03202-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 May 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 | CY2011 | 01984-11

    Original file (01984-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested, in effect, that the fitness report for 16 December 2009 to 30 April 2010 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS's) letter dated 25 August 2010, by raising the marks in sections D.1 (“Performance”) and D.2 (“Proficiency”) from “C” (fifth best of seven possible marks) to “D” (fourth best), and E.2 (*Effectiveness Under Stress”) and G.1 (‘Professional Military Education”) from “B” (second best) to “C.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08458-10

    Original file (08458-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed the requested modification of the report for 26 July 2006 to 28 February 2007. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 August 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 | CY2009 | 08538-09

    Original file (08538-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 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 | 11693-10

    Original file (11693-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You also requested that the service record page 11 counseling entry dated 21 November 2008 be modified by deleting the following: Your demonstrated lack of maturity, judgment and decision making abilities, specifically your inappropriate sexual relationship with a CPL [corporal] [pay grade E=-4}(fthen a PFC [private first class) [pay grade E-2] when it started). A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02003-11

    Original file (02003-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 March 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, wher applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 06756-11

    Original file (06756-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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 | CY2008 | 09204-08

    Original file (09204-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Tt is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 10 January to 15 May 2007 as you requested. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 12829-10

    Original file (12829-10.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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB, except to not you did not request completely removing section K (RO’s marks and comments) of the reports in question. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11858-10

    Original file (11858-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 April 2011. The Board was unable to find that your circumstances prevented you from availing yourself of your opportunities to defend yourself or pursue redress regarding the contested performance evaluation reports. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...