Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 03451-12
Original file (03451-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

701 S, COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

HD : hd
Docket No. 03451-12
13 September 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 removing the punitive letter of
reprimand dated 26 January 2011 and associated documents.

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. 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 June 2012, 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 comments
contained in the advisory opinion. The Board was unable to find that
NPC (PERS-83) has, as you allege, “ruled that there was enough
evidence to suggest, at the time of [your] misconduct, that [you]
did not have the appropriate mental responsibility for [your]
actions.” The Board found that while administrative separation
proceedings were suspended pending completion of your physical
disability processing, your disciplinary proceedings were
completed. 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,

\aibaard

W. DEAN PFE
Executive Dive r

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | CY2008 | 07246-08

    Original file (07246-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your request concerning your medal was not considered, as you may submit that request to the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) (PERS-312E). A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your. 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03625-10

    Original file (03625-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your request for investigation of the reporting Senior's actions was not considered, as the Board for Correction of Naval Records is not an investigative body. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 2010. The Board also considered the NPC e-mail dated 3 September 2009 with attachment (DD Form 214), a copy of which is attached, and your letters dated 20 August 2009 with enclosures, 30 October 2009 and 2 February 2010.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03574-09

    Original file (03574-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Finally, you impliedly requested removing the service record page 13 ("Administrative Remarks") entry dated 25 July 2008 and documentation of your removal from the Fiscal Year (FY) 09 Active Duty Chief Petty Officer Selection Board List.. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 December 2009, Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8212 13

    Original file (NR8212 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 February 2014. 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 | CY2009 | 11528-09

    Original file (11528-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 April 2010. The Board particularly noted that on 8 February 2007, you submitted a copy of the report ending 31 October 2006 to the FY 08 Line Commander Selection Board, convened on 13 February 2007. 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 | CY2002 | 02778-00

    Original file (02778-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You alleged that your spot promotion correspondence was mailed for consideration by the FY 00 First Quarter Spot Selection Board, convened on 5 November 1999. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 April 2001. 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...

  • 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 | 06708-10

    Original file (06708-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 October 2010. 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 | CY2012 | 04127-12

    Original file (04127-12.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. 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...