DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
WJH
Docket: 12634-10
5 April 20121
This is in reference to your application for correction of
naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 30 March 2011. Your allegations of error
and injustice were reviewed in accordance with the
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.
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion
furnished by the United States Marine Corps letter 5400 RAM
of 11 Feb 2011, a copy of which is attached. The Board also
considered your reply to the advisory opinion dated 15
March 2011.
The Board notes that you have applied for a correction to
your record for alleged error that allegedly occurred
approximately twenty years ago. Under the rules governing
this Board, an application for a correction of a naval
record must be made within three years after the discovery
of the alleged error. Failure to file within the
prescribed three years may be excused only in cases where
the Board finds that it is in the interests ef justice to
do so.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable
Docket: 12634-10
material error or injustice. The Board found that it is
not in the interests of justice to excuse the three year
time limit in your particular case. You neglected to
assert your claim for an jnordinately long period of time
without sufficient justification. Additionally, the Board
concurred with the comments contained in the advisory
opinion. Accession into the AR program is highly
competitive. In the Board’s view, the evidence does not
show that you non-selection for the program was erroneous
or unjust or that any fitness reports should be removed
from your record.
Based on the circumstances described 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
also 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,
lp Noe |
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Di
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03031-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, congidered your application on 24 October 2011. Under the rules governing this Board, an application for a correction of a naval record must be made within three years after the discovery of the alleged error. 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 | 01219-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction @f Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 June 2011. The absence of a service record showing the effective date of a promotion indicates that a candidate was not actually promoted. 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 | 02904-10
Under the rules governing this Board, an application for a correction of a naval record must be made within three years after the discovery of the alleged error. And no application for correction was received by this Board until March 2010. Review of the available records in your case has revealed that, due to the passage of time, much of the documentation pertaining to the prior adjudication of your claims for reimbursement no longer exists. Under these circumstances, the Board found that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07001-10
s A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered the allegations contained in your application on 8 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. CNO Code N130 has been unable to find evidence that would substantiate your claim that an error occurred in 1988.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07186-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 March 2011. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. There is no evidence that you were or should have been advanced beyond that rank prior to your discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 12237-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 May 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 | CY2014 | NR8226 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 April 2015. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by OCNO memo 7220 N130D2/14U0995 of 28 July 2014 and OCNO memo 7220 N130D2/14U01313 of 8 October 2014, 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 05523 11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 January 2012. 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 | 11753-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 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 | CY2013 | NR4795-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 July 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. In this regard, an RE-4 reentry code is required when a Sailor is separated at the expiration of her term of active obligated service and is not...