DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
HD:hd
Docket No. 07385-10
17 March 2011
ne
This igs 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.
It is noted that your lieutenant date of rank is 20 May 2005, rather
than 20 May 2006.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 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 opinion furnished by the Chief, Bureau of Medicine and
Surgery dated 24 August 2010, a copy of which is attached.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record,
the Board found that the evidence submitted was imeutficient ts
establish the existence of probable material error or injuetiee. In
this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments
contained in the advisory opinion. Since the Board found
insufficient basis to change your lieutenant date of rank, and you
have not been promoted to lieutenant commander, you have no
entitlement to back pay on the basis of a promotion to lieutenant
commander. 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. Youare 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,
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06266-10
Your previous request, docket number 12841-09, again seeking to remove the original fitness report and replace it with the revised report, or just remove the original report, and remove your failures of selection to lieutenant colonel, which then included failures of selection by the FY 2005 and 2006 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards, was administratively closed on 25 May 2010. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered...
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 | CY2013 | NR6312-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 2014. 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 | CY2010 | 12409-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 31 March 2011. The Board also considered your counsel’s letters dated 15 November 2010 and 17 March 2011, each with attachments. 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 | 08895-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 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 | 09523-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 March 2011. The Board observed that your case was not resolved at the conclusion of your civil proceedings, as administrative separation proceedings were to be initiated. 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 | 04758-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable atatutes, 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 | 04260-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 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. 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 | 05599-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 28 April 2011. in finding that your FY 2011 failure of selection should stand, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinions dated 15 June 2010 and 31 January and 9 February 2011, and particularly noted the statement, in the advisory opinion dated 1 October 2010, that “a discrepancy notice was not provided to MMSB [the HOMC...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10693-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 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.