Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00219-11
Original file (00219-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

HD: hd
Docket No. 00219-1121
11 August 2014

 

Dear Lieut |]

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

11 August 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 and
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the
Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel
Command (NPC) dated 4 February 2011, 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 advisory
opinion, noting that you may ask NPC to add the dismissal
documentation to your record. Accordingly, your application has
been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel wiil
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,

W. ee
Executive “‘Drrector

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04046-11

    Original file (04046-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 August 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 | CY2011 | 03701-11

    Original file (03701-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 10612-10

    Original file (10612-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 13125-10

    Original file (13125-10.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. 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. 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 | NR6340 13

    Original file (NR6340 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) has administratively removed the contested special evaluation and reinstated your original TIR and effective dates for pay grade E-6. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 20 September and 16 December 2013, 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 03451-12

    Original file (03451-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 September 2012. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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 | 04044-10

    Original file (04044-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 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 | CY2006 | 01496-06

    Original file (01496-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You further impliedly requested removing all documentation of your nonjudicial punishment (NJP) of 22 June 2005 and the vacation of suspension of your reduction to pay grade E-4 on 19 August 2005.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, consideredyour application on 7 December 2006. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 05759-11

    Original file (05759-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 August 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 | 04137-11

    Original file (04137-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 August 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...