Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 05133 12
Original file (05133 12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 8. COURTHOUSE ROAD
ARLINGTON, VA 22204

 

JBH
Docket No. 5133-12
16 Oct 13

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval
record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552.

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

15 October 2013. 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 OCNO Memo 7220 Ser
N130D/13U0849 dated 30 September 2013, 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. Accordingly, your application has
been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be
furnished upon request.

It ig 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,

ound

W. DEAN PFE E
Executive Directo

Enclosure: OCNO Memo 7220 Ser N130D/13U00849 dated 30 September 2013

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR1916-13

    Original file (NR1916-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, gitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 September 2013. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by OCNO Memo 7220 Ser N130D/13U0408 dated 9 May 2013, a copy of which igs 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 | CY2014 | NR9255 14

    Original file (NR9255 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 April 2015. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval Docket No.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7118 14

    Original file (NR7118 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 April 2015. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by OCNO memo 7220 Ser N130D/14U1467 of 4 November 2014, a copy of which is attached. However, the Board found that your orders to VP-45 had a Projected Rotation Date (PRD) of November 2015.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6533 14

    Original file (NR6533 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You were advised via our letter dated 24 September 2013 (your case was Boarded 23 September 2013), that your aoplication had been denied. Documentary materials considered by the Board consisted of your applicaticn, together with all materials submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and pclicies. after careful and) conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board) found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to etablish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7121 14

    Original file (NR7121 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In your own words you state “my recruiter and classifier at MEPS both failed to make me aware of the bonus I was entitled to as per my rate (AIRC), and time of entry.” Enlistment bonuses are not a Docket No. In your case it was not offered and you voluntarily signed up without the incentive of an enlistment bonus. 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 | CY2014 | NR4201 14

    Original file (NR4201 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    “pocumentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, requiations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by OCNO memo 7220 Ser Ni30C/14U1201 dated 11 September 2014, a COpy of which is attached. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5250 13

    Original file (NR5250 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    NR5250-13 1i March 2014 This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with 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 injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR9045 13

    Original file (NR9045 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4814 13

    Original file (NR4814 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 10 March 2014. in addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by OCNO Memo 7220 Ser N130C/1300997 dated eres 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 | CY2013 | NR4752 13

    Original file (NR4752 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by OCNO Memo 7220 Ser Ni30C/13U1038 dated ea, 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...