Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 11565 12
Original file (11565 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

BUG
Docket No: 11565-12
12 February 2014

 

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 11 February 2014. 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 from the Office of the Judge Advocate General

dated 14 January 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 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 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, _

Rye Bz oo

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN .
Acting Executive Director

Enclosure

Co to:

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3378 14

    Original file (NR3378 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 December 2014 and requested that an additional advisory opinion be obtained from the Navy Personnel Command (NPC). The Board also considered your letter dated 12 September 2014 with enclosures and your e-mail dated 10 December 2014. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5087 14

    Original file (NR5087 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 12 February 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 record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1346 14

    Original file (NR1346 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 22 May 2014. 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. 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 | NR2990 14

    Original file (NR2990 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 12 February 2015. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7639-13

    Original file (NR7639-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your ; application on 11 February 2014. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2064 13

    Original file (NR2064 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 11 June 2014. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted is 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 | CY2014 | NR5266 14

    Original file (NR5266 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 11 February 2014. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case. 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 | NR5486 14

    Original file (NR5486 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 12 February 2015. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4576 14

    Original file (NR4576 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    — A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, . In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Administrative Law), dated 24 March 2014, Chief of Naval Personnel, dated 14 October 2014, and Commander, Navy Recruiting Command, dated 26 November 2014, 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR9268 13

    Original file (NR9268 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Boara for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 May 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable...