DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
HD
Docket No: NR413-13
17 October 2013
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.
You requested that your discharge of 10 August 2009 be voided; that
you be awarded constructive service credit from 11 August 2009 to
the date you would have attained 20 years of active duty service;
‘that all *red flag” actions be removed; that you be considered by
a special selection board (SSB) for advancement to pay grade E-7;
and that all records reflecting the substantiation of the sexual
assault allegation against you be removed.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
Sitting in executive session, considered your application on
17 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 and
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the
Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel
Command dated 10 April 2013, a copy of which is attached. The Board
also considered your counsel’s letter dated 10 September 2013 with
enclosures.
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 orinjustice. In
this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments
contained in the advisory opinion.
hen
ane
The Board found that the Case Review Committee (CRC) reports dated
24 December 2008 and 21 May 2009 were in substantial compliance with
OPNAVINST (Chief of Naval Operations Instruction) 1752.2B. In this
regard, the Board noted that paragraph 4 of each report specified
the information that was considered by the CRC. The Board found you
had no basis for SSB consideration, as your record before the Fiscal
Year (FY) 09 (23 June - 21 July 2008) and FY 10 (22 June - 21 July
2009) E-7 Selection Boards, by which you were considered but not
selected, included no information revealing the allegation against
you. Since the Board was unable to find any defect in either of your
considerations for advancement, it had no grounds to set aside your
discharge, the reason for which was High-Year Tenure. Finally, the
Board was unable to determine what actions you characterize as “red
flag,” so it could not consider their removal.
In view of the above, 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,
Tao
Executive rector
Enclosure
Copy to:
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06382-09
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. Since the Board found insufficient basis ‘to remove those documents, it had no grounds to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09308-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 16 September 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your current application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board's files on your prior cases (docket numbers 07213-07 and 08633-09), your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03574-09
Finally, you impliedly requested removing the service record page 13 ("Administrative Remarks") entry dated 25 July 2008 and documentation of your removal from the Fiscal Year (FY) 09 Active Duty Chief Petty Officer Selection Board List.. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 December 2009, Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8165 13
In this regard, the majority is not persuaded that Petitioner's selection by the FY 2014 promotion board, witha corrected fitness report record, would have been definitely unlikely. The majority notes that Petitioner’s failure of selection by the FY 2015 promotion board, for which he had a corrected fitness report record, must 2 be removed to restore him to the status he had for the FY 2014 board, as an officer who had not failed of selection. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected so...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08633-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 3 September 2009. Further, the Board noted that the modification of this report directed by PERB in your previous case was implemented on 7 August 2007, before the FY 2009 Lieutenant Colonel. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017028
The DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Action (FLAG)), dated 16 February 2006, be retroactively removed from his official military personnel file (OMPF) as of the date his Article 15 punishment was completed in October 2007; c. The DA Form 268, dated 2 September 2008, be retroactively removed from his OMPF as of the date of issue; d. Any reference to a Board of Inquiry (BOI) be removed from his OMPF; e. He be given the opportunity to attend the Captain's Career Course; f. His...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR1960 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 October 2013. 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 | CY2010 | 00446-10
You finally impliedly requested removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)") counseling entry dated 25 January 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. Further, the (enclosure Board was unable to find your promotion would not have been delayed, had the results of the inspection, which was conducted on...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06748-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 June 2009. 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 (docket number 2803-07), your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01679-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 February 2002. The Board was likewise unable to find that the Commander, Naval Surface Reserve Force denied your right to an interview with him; that he inadequately reviewed the DFC documentation; or that he wrongfully concurred with and forwarded the DFC recommendation. Since the Board found that the DFC and related fitness report should stand, they had no...