DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No. NR332-13
24 October 2013
Dear Sergeant ‘rE
This is in reference to your letter dated 10 January 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, section1552. You again requested removing the fitness
reports for 10 April to 31 October 2007 and 1 November 2007 to 3
February 2008 and the service record page 11(M) (“Administrative
Remarks (1070)”) counseling entry dated 11 January 2008. In your
previous case, docket number 5015-11, the Board denied this relief
on 15 September 2011.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 24 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 file on your
prior case, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations
and policies. The Board also considered the report of the
Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board
(PERB) dated 19 July 2013 and the advisory opinion from HOMC dated
_8 August 2013, copies of which are 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 and the advisory opinion.
Specifically regarding the contested counseling entry, the Board
found the extenuating circumstances you presented did not excuse your
lapse of judgment for firing your pistol at a pack of stray dogs when
there were other means to handle them that would have avoided using
deadly force, regardless of whether the standard operating procedure
was unclear. In view of the above, the Board again voted to deny
the requested 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,
Pan
W. DEAN PFEL
Executive Di¥ec
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3084 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 10 October 2013. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8890 14
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 | CY2006 | 10583-06
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
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 | CY2007 | 8556-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 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, and your prior case file. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08556-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 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, and your prior case file. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11043-07
Your previous case, docket number 11161-06, was denied on 19 January 2007. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 October 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 | CY2011 | 00431-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 31 March 2011. 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 prior case, 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8532 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 July 2014. in addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 18 October 2013, the e- Mail from HQMC dated 19 November 2013, and the advisory opinions from HOMC dated 25 March 2014 with enclosure and 8 May 2014, copies of which are attached, - After careful and conscientious...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2999 13
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...