DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX HD: hd
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
Docket No. 13125-10
4 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 3 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
congidered 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 Navy Personnel Command (NPC) dated
18 January 2011 with enclosure and the NPC e-mail dated 1 March 2011,
copies of which are attached. The Board also considered your letter
dated 16 February 2011 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.
The Board found the contested document should remain in your record,
but not for the reason stated in the advisory opinion. The Board
found that the favorable outcome of your board of inquiry proceedings
did not invalidate the Case Review Committee’s substantiated finding
that you abused your daughter, and it noted that although the Naval
Inspector General (NAVIG) found the reprisal charge against you to
be unsubstantiated, the charge that you made an improper referral
for a mental health evaluation was found to be substantiated. The
Board did observe that under title 10, United States Code, section
624(d) (4), the 18-month maximum delay of promotion in your case did
not run from May 2008, when the promotion list was approved, but from
“the date on which the officer would otherwise have been appointed,”
which according to the NPC e-mail was 1 December 2008. Accordingly,
the Board found that the final result of the NAVIG investigation,
issued on 9 April 2010, was available before the expiration of the
18-month period on 1 June 2010, so you should not have been removed
from the promotion list by operation of law. However, the Board
found that you would have been removed from the promotion list in
any event, by reason of the substantiated charges of child abuse and
improper referral for a mental health evaluation. 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. 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,
Veo !
W. DEAN Spe
Executive EOE
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03625-10
Your request for investigation of the reporting Senior's actions was not considered, as the Board for Correction of Naval Records is not an investigative body. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 2010. The Board also considered the NPC e-mail dated 3 September 2009 with attachment (DD Form 214), a copy of which is attached, and your letters dated 20 August 2009 with enclosures, 30 October 2009 and 2 February 2010.
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 | 00446-10
You finally impliedly requested removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)") counseling entry dated 25 January 2008. 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. Further, the (enclosure Board was unable to find your promotion would not have been delayed, had the results of the inspection, which was conducted on...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07700-10
07700-10 22 October 2010 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records TO; Secretary of the Navy REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Ref : (a} 10 U.S.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by removing all documentation of his removal from the Fiscal Year (FY) 09 Active Duty Navy Lieutenant All-Fully-Qualified- Officers List (AFQOL), a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10612-10
Your previous case, docket number 018976-10, was denied on 2 September 2010. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 6 October 2011. In addition; the Board considered the e-mail advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) dated 21 September 2010 with attachments and the National Naval Medical Center (NNMC) Bethesda dated 22 August 2011 with attachment, copies of which are attached.
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 | CY2012 | 03982 12
CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of enclosure (2), the Board finds an injustice warranting removal of the contested performance evaluation report and Petitioner’s consideration by a special board under reference (b) for the FY 12 ERB, to consider him for retention on the basis of a corrected record that does not include the contested performance evaluation report. DEAN PFET Reviewed and approved: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY OFFICE...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01486-10
R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 August 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 31 March 2010, a copy of which ig 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 | 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 | CY2010 | 08487-10
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted im support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 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. Since the Board found insufficient basis to remove your failure of selection by the FY 2011...