Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10341-10
Original file (10341-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

RDZ:ech
Docket No. 10341-10
16 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.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 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 evidence
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 dated 20 September 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 advisory opinion. More specifically the Board
concluded that in view of your extensive and frequent acts of
misconduct, some of which were serious, you were properly issued an
other than honorable discharge and RE-4 reenlistment code. Moreover
the Board noted that you waived your right to an administrative
discharge board where with the assistance of a military lawyer you
could have requested retention or a better discharge.
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 applicafit to demonstrate the existence of probable material
‘error or injustice. *

Sincerely,
ee eae ae, Sonn

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Deputy Executive Director

 

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01699-10

    Original file (01699-10.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 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, 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 | 05470-11

    Original file (05470-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 February 2012. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Chief of Naval Operations dated 5 July 2011 with attachments and the Navy Personnel Command dated 19 July 2011, 8 August 2011 and 10 August 2011 with attachment, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07834-10

    Original file (07834-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested that your selection for advancement to chief petty officer be reinstated as of your original projected effective date of advancement, 16 July 2007. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 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 | CY2010 | 09601-10

    Original file (09601-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 March 2011. Documentary evidence 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 fora correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 13412-10

    Original file (13412-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 March 2011. Documentary evidence 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 | 10996-10

    Original file (10996-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 January 2011. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the NPC dated 26 and 28 October 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 | 09596-10

    Original file (09596-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 March 2011. Documentary evidence 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 | 02522-11

    Original file (02522-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 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, 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 | 02109-11

    Original file (02109-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 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, 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 | 06527-10

    Original file (06527-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 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...