DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
HD:hd
Docket No. 10720-10
13 January 2011
This is in reference to your application dated 25 August 2010, seeking
reconsideration of your previous application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United
States Code, section 1552 by removal of the fitness report for
1 February to 17 August 2006. Your previous case, docket number
02370-09, was denied on 8 October 2009.
You now request, as a first choice, modification of the report by
‘yaising the mark in block 42 (*Promotion Recommendation”) from
“Promotable” (third best of five possible marks) to “Early Promote”
(best); raising the trait mark average from 2.67 to 4.04; and
deleting, from block 41 (“Comments on Performance” ), “fyou]
exhibited a progressively downward trend in performance and
judgement throughout this reporting period. My confidence in [your]
pastoral leadership has eroded due to repeated poor judgement and
decision making coupled with violations of religious instructions
and perceived lack of moral attributes.” ang: “however, [you require]
oversight for decision making and personnel matters. As a second
choice, you again request completely removing the report.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case 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 current
application, together with all material submitted in support
thereof, the Board’s file on your prior case, and applicable
statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board
considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel
Command dated 28 October 2010, a copy of whichis attached. The Board
also considered your letters dated 20 November 2010 and 28 November
2010 with enclosures.
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. Accordingly, the Board again
voted to deny relief. 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 inj ustice.
Sincerely,
Qu
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Dive
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03701-11
The Board also considered your counsel’s letters dated 11 November 2010 and 22 April 2011 with enclosure. Since the Board still found no defect in your fitness report record, it had no basis to recommend your advancement to either pay grade E-8 or E-9,. In view of the above, the Board again voted to deny relief.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06527-10
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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR6975 13
Your previous case, docket number 08435-10, was denied on 4 November 2010. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04642-08
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 furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 19 June 2008, a copy of which is 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 | CY2010 | 08435-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 November 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 10 September 2010, a copy of which is 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 | CY1998 | 07639-98
The new statements at enclosures (2) through (4) of your current application, among these a statement from the reviewing officer who acted on your fitness report at issue, did not persuade them that this report should be removed. 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. Subsequently, Major Performance Evaluation Review Board for removal from the record of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06447-08
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 opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 6 August and 2 October 2008, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
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 | CY2014 | NR8180 14
Rh three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24. 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 error or...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8180 14
Rh three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24. 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 error or...