DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
HD: hd
Docket No. 06205-11
15 September 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
15 September 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 furnished by the
Navy Personnel Command dated 11 July 2011, a copy of which is
attached. The Board also considered the Veteran’s Counselor’s
letter dated 9 August 2011 with attachments.
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 that the
Commanding Officer, Navy Recruiting District, Detroit letter dated
21 February 1989, provided with your Veteran’s Counselor’s letter,
specifically stated that “you will not be entitled to pay and other
monetary allowances of a First Class Petty Officer until actually
advanced to the paygrade [sic] for which you have been selected,”
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 injugtice.
Sincerely,
Sowa
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Di
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11493-10
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Commandant of the Marine Corps letters CMC 1741 MMSR-4 of 13 Jan 2011 and CMC 1741 MMSR-4 of 25 Apr 2011, copies of which are attached and were previously furnished to you. You were counseled on the “the negative impact of not completing 20 years of active duty.” There is no evidence of fraud, duress, or misrepresentation at the time you accepted the PEB findings and sought to be released from active duty. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08317-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 January 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 | 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 | CY2011 | 00581-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 September 2011. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 3 February and 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 material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08895-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 January 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof 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 material error or...
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 | CY2008 | 00009-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 November 2008. The Board concluded that the rating actions taken by the VA in your case in 2002 and 2004 are not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record. 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 | 09783-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 January 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 | 03446-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 July 2011. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 18 May 2011 with attachment, 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 error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04768-11
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 25 May and 9 June 2011, copies of which are 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...