DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DCG 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 13215-10
14 April 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.
You requested that your naval record be corrected by changing
your retired grade From warrant officer (WO) to chief warrant
officer 2 (CWO2).
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 14 April 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 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 24
February 2011, a copy of which is attached, and your letter
dated 25 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. In this connection, the Board substantially
concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion.
The Board noted your assertion, in your letter of 25 March 2011,
that you did not submit a voluntary request for retirement im:
lieu of administrative separation, but found this does not bear
on the issue of whether you served satisfactorily in the grade
of CWO2. 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 regardy.it is important to keep in mind that
a presumption of regularityfattaches to all official records.
Consequently, when applying *for a correction of an official
naval record, the burden ifs pn the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.
sie Sincerely,
i
Executive Di
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09891-09
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 from Headquarters Marine Corps dated 24 August and 24 September 2010, copies of which are attached, and your letter dated 11 October 2010 with enclosure. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10071-07
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. Petitioner contacted Retired Operations Section (N-152), enclosure (2), requesting clarification on retired status. Per enclosure (4) advancement on the retired list to the grade of CWO2 would result in a loss of pay.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05418-08
Concerning your objection that your promotion was delayed beyond 90 days after final action in your criminal case, the Board noted that the delay of your promotion was not based solely on the proceedings in state court, but also on the disposition of your case by military authorities. Even if the six-month provision of SECNAVINST 1412.9B is considered applicable to the delay in your case, the Board noted that on 12 October 2005, before your promotion had been delayed for six months,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2713 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 August 2014. 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 | CY1999 | 08436-98
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. opinion furnished by NPC memorandum 5420 Ser attached. 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.
CG | BCMR | Retirement Cases | 2010-161
This final decision, dated February 4, 2011, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, who was medically retired from the Coast Guard on December 12, 1990, asked the Board to correct his record to show that he was promoted to CWO3 before his retire- ment and retired at that rank. On his signed application form, DD 149, the applicant noted his pay grade as “CWO-2 (RET).” The Board, referring to the applicant as a CWO2, ordered the record...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11858-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 April 2011. The Board was unable to find that your circumstances prevented you from availing yourself of your opportunities to defend yourself or pursue redress regarding the contested performance evaluation reports. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1002025
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends there is no basis in statute or regulation for him to have been retired with an OTH. By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall SUFFICIENT SERVICE FOR RETIREMENT.Discussion The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such...