Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 12010 12
Original file (12010 12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
7O1l S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

TUR
Docket No: 12010-12
19 March 2013

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United
States Code, Section 1552.

A three-member panei of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 19 March 2013. The names and votes of the >
members of the panel.will be furnished upon request. 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 ail
material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and
applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. In addition, the
Board considered the attached advisory opinions that were
furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps, Manpower Information
Quality Assurance, Manpower Management Information Systems
Division (MIQ) and Military Justice Branch, Judge Advocate
Division (JAM), copies of which are enclosed.

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 regard, the Board substantially
concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.

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,
Sou )

W. DEAN PFE
Executive Di

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01886-00

    Original file (01886-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Removal of the following fitness reports was requested: a. b. The case is forwarded for fin Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps Deputy Director Personnel Management Division Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps 2 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROAD QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-510 3 IN REPLY REFER TO: 5354 MPE ---, .i MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE NAVAL RECORDS DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF Subj: REVIEW...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03840-08

    Original file (03840-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 March 2009. 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 | CY2008 | 04433-08

    Original file (04433-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 April 2009. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions from the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Manpower Information Operations, Manpower Management Information Systems Division (MIO), dated 16 April 2008 with enclosure, and the HQMC Military Law Branch, Judge Advocate Division (JAM3), dated 28 April 2008, and the report of the HQMC Performance...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01672-08

    Original file (01672-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 November 2008. 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 | CY2008 | 05347-08

    Original file (05347-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 October 2008. 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 | CY2014 | NR9645 14

    Original file (NR9645 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 il September 2014. Your counsel, citing DOD Instruction 1320.04, dated 3 January 2014, relied on Enclosure 4, paragraph 1.a(1)(b)2, which referred to information that “Did not result in more than a non-punitive rehabilitative counseling administered by a superior to a subordinate.” He contended that this language, which does not appear in DOD Instruction 1320.4,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05473-07

    Original file (05473-07.rtf) 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. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated 1 December 2007.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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00379-02

    Original file (00379-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested removal of your fitness reports for 1 March to 28 August 1998 and 1 October to 14 November 1998, as well as documentation of your relief for the good of the service from recruiting duty. ” CMC also “Recruited SNM was put on bed rest/no duty due to pregnancy problems/back problems. (2), the approval authority (GOS) relief from recruiting duty, has supports her request for Additionally, enclosure Based upon this review, 2. following errors require corrective action.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09088-08

    Original file (09088-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 January 2009. 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 | CY2007 | 04306-07

    Original file (04306-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed correcting the contested fitness report by changing the entry in item 17.a (“Commendatory”) from “No” to “Yes.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 July 2008. The Board agreed with the advisory opinion from MMOA-4 in concluding the correction of item 17.a of the fitness report at issue would not have appreciably enhanced...