Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3084 13
Original file (NR3084 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

JSR
Docket No. NR3084-13
10 October 2013

 

This is in reference to your application dated 1 March 2013, 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 again requested removing the fitness
report for 1 June 2005 to 17 June 2006. This request was denied in
your previous cases, docket numbers 8554-07 and 10274-11, on 16
November 2007 and 3 November 2011, respectively.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 10 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, the Board’s files on your
prior cases, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations
and policies. The Board also considered the report of the
Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB)
dated 14 August 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 report of the PERB. The Board duly noted the
supporting statement from your current reporting senior at enclosure
(3) to your letter of 28 February 2013. Enclosure (7) to your letter
did not persuade the Board that your reporting senior discriminated
against you because of your Puerto Rican heritage. In view of the
above, the Board again voted to deny relief. 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,

Ly Vong
W. DEAN P F

Executive Die

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08069-02

    Original file (08069-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In your current application, you again request removing the original report, but you also add a new request to replace it with a revised report the reporting senior has submitted for the pertinent period. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report. Nothing has been furnished with reference (a) that documents any factual errors associated with the fitness report - Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06266-10

    Original file (06266-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2007 | 04362-07

    Original file (04362-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 priorcase, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated12June 2007, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 12425-10

    Original file (12425-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (NR332 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2006 | 10583-06

    Original file (10583-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your previous case, docket number 7199-06, was denied on 7 September 2006. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 May 2008. 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 | NR5059 13

    Original file (NR5059 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By letter of 11 April 2013, you requested removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) entry dated 15 September 2008. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 October 2013. 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 | NR8890 14

    Original file (NR8890 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 9 April 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. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2999 13

    Original file (NR2999 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 18 September 2014. The Board also considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 18 February 2014 and the advisory opinion from HQMC dated 3 July 2034, 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 | CY2003 | 03768-03

    Original file (03768-03.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    of 11931 to “ 1” of 39933; or if neither of these actions is possible, remove the original report; and remove the failures of selection by the FY 2003 and 2004 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your letter, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board’s files on your prior cases, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The modification of the report would increase the...