DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 6696-11
6 October 2011
Dear Master Sergean iii
This is in reference to your letter dated 31 May 2011, seeking
reconsideration of your previous application for correction of
your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the
United States Code, section 1552. You have again requested.~
removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks /)
(1070)") entry dated 20 May 2010 and your rebuttal dated 24 “May
2010. In your previous case, docket number 13191-10, the entry
and rebuttal were modified on 3 March 2011.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval ’
Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on
6 October 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
opinions from Headquarters Marine Corps dated 9 and 26 August
2011, copies of which are attached, and your letter dated 20
September 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.
If it is true that you used your Government Travel Credit Card
unintentionally, the Board found the use still would have been
unauthorized. If you are correct that you reported the use in
question, and that you requested to add a day of leave to what
had been approved, the Board found these would be only
Mitigating factors. Finally, the Board was unable to find your
rebuttal was not considered, even if you are correct that you
transferred immediately after receiving the contested entry. In
view of the above, the Board again voted to deny your request
for complete removal of the page 11 entry and your rebuttal.
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,
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00431-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 31 March 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your current application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board's file on your prior case, 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 05336-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 August 2011. Since the Board found insufficient basis to remove or modify the page 11 entry, and you have provided no other new and Material evidence or other matter regarding the previously contested fitness report, the Board had no grounds to remove or modify the report. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03264-11
You further requested reconsideration of your previous request, docket number 12875-10, to remove the fitness report for 30 March to 6 June 2010, which was denied on 21 January 2011. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 August 2011. 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 | CY2009 | 07624-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 19 February 2010. The Board found the removal of that entry from your record did not completely invalidate the contested fitness report, which has been modified by removing all reference to the entry. In this regard, the report as it now appears in your Official Military Personnel File properly reflects all the corrections directed by the report of the PERB dated 22...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05599-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 28 April 2011. in finding that your FY 2011 failure of selection should stand, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinions dated 15 June 2010 and 31 January and 9 February 2011, and particularly noted the statement, in the advisory opinion dated 1 October 2010, that “a discrepancy notice was not provided to MMSB [the HOMC...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 12425-10
You now request that the report for 2 October 1980 to 31 January 1981 be modified by addition of the reporting senior’s (RS’s) undated letter, and you again request removing the other two reports. 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, and the Board’s file on your prior case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR332 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 24 October 2013. In view of the above, the Board again voted to deny the requested relief. 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 | 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 | CY2010 | 06961-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 2 June 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your current application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board's file en your prior case, 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01445-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your case on 18 August 2011. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions from Headquarters Marine Corps, dated 24 March 2011 and 6 July 2011 with enclosure, and the Marine Corps Recruiting Command dated 31 March 2011, copies of which are attached, and your letter dated 4 August 2011. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...