DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE RD SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON VA 22204-2490
HD:hd
Docket No. 04260-11
2 February 2012
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, in effect, setting aside of your nonjudicial punishment
(NUP) of 14 October 2009; and removal of correspondence concerning
delay of your promotion to lieutenant junior grade, detachment for
cause, and show cause hearing (administrative separation proceedings),
as well as your fitness reports for 1 June 2009 through 15 July 2010.
Finally, you requested promotion to lieutenant junior grade with a
date of rank and effective date of 1 February 2010. By your e-mail
dated 21 July 2011, you withdrew your request to set aside your NUP.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2
February 2012. 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 opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 23 May
2011 with enclosure, 30 August and 15 September 2011, copies of which
are attached. The Board also considered your letter dated 6 July 2011
with enclosures and your e-mail dated 21 July 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 opinions. The Board found the error in the
contested fitness report for 1 June 2009 to 31 January 2010 was in
your favor, so it was not a basis for corrective action. 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,
sd Sen.
W. DEAN PFEIPSHR
Executive Di
Enclosures
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04984-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 2009. The Board was unable to find that the command's correspondence with MMPR-2 dated 4 December 2005, recommending a four-month delay of your promotion, was based on anything other than the NUP, noting that the appeal of your NUP was not denied until 1 December 2005. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR9148 13
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 to show his promotion to lieutenant junior grade (pay grade O-2) with a date of rank and effective date of 6 June 2007 (the day after his disenrollment from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS)), and promotion to lieutenant (pay grade O-3) with a date of rank and...
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 | CY2011 | 06760-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 July 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 | NR7775 13
He was then selected by the FY 2012 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board, convened on 17 April 2012, and he was promoted to gunnery sergeant with a date of rank and effective date of 1 December 2012. d. Enclosure (4) shows that the in zone percentage selected for the FY 2006 Staff Sergeant Selection Board was 62.2. e. Enclosure (5) reflects that the HQMC Performance Evaluation Review Board directed removing Petitioner's fitness report for 1 April to 2 November 2006, which documented the later...
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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09121-11
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. The Board found it was during the period of the contested fitness report that you received a formal counseling for your conduct before that period, as mentioned in section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”) of the report. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...
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 | CY2014 | NR6368 14
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an officer in the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his naval record be corrected by removing any and all derogatory material referencing the imposition of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 19 October 2011, for making a false official statement, a Punitive Letter of Reprimand (LOR) dated 23 October 2011, fitness reports (FITREP) for the periods of 11 March 2011 to 31 January 2012 and 1 February 2012 to 11 May...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04758-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable atatutes, 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 material error or injustice.