DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BUG
Docket No: 7470-10
17 September 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.
You requested that the service record page 11 (“Administrative
Remarks (1070)”) counseling entry dated 31 March 2010 be
removed and that your concealed weapons permit be returned by
your chain of command. Your request concerning your permit was
not considered, as the Board for Correction of Naval Records
has no authority to direct your command to return your permit.
A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 16 September 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.
The Board also considered the advisory opinion from
Headquarters Marine Corps, dated 2 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
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice. In this connection, the Board
substantially concurred with the advisory opinion in concluding
the contested page 11 entry should stand. 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 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,
W. DE
Executive Di
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05827-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 November 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 | CY2013 | NR1960 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 October 2013. 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 | CY2011 | 06696-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval ’ Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 6 October 2011. In view of the above, the Board again voted to deny your request for complete removal of the page 11 entry and your rebuttal. 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 | 07717-10
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 Board also considered the advisory opinion from HQMC, dated 10 September 2010 with enclosures, a copy of which is attached. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was ‘ dnsufficient to establish the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10956-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 17 November and 11 December 2009 and 11 January 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03264-11
You further requested reconsideration of your previous request, docket number 12875-10, to remove the fitness report for 30 March to 6 June 2010, which was denied on 21 January 2011. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 August 2011. 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 | 01547-10
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 (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 2 December 2009, the advisory opinion from HOMC dated 25 January 2010, and the e-mail from the HQOMC Performance Evaluation Review Branch dated 2 March 2010,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 05336-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 August 2011. Since the Board found insufficient basis to remove or modify the page 11 entry, and you have provided no other new and Material evidence or other matter regarding the previously contested fitness report, the Board had no grounds to remove or modify the report. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05330-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 October 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 18 June 2010 and the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations dated 2 August 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07363-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 January 2010. The Board did not consider whether your reason for separation should be changed, since you have not exhausted your administrative remedies by applying to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...