Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR6312-13
Original file (NR6312-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

HD
Docket No: NR6312-13
20 March 2014

 

Dear Petty Officer MBA

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 reinstatement to flight status
and redesignation to 1310 (unrestricted line officer qualified for
flying duty), removal of your fitness report for 24 September 2010
to 31 January 2011 and promotion to lieutenant commander from the
Fiscal Year 13 Active Duty Line Lieutenant Commander Selection Board.

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

20 March 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 and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the
Commander, Naval Air Force, Pacific (CNAP) letter dated 15 October
2013 and the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel
Command dated 2 and 17 December 2013, copies of which are attached,

The Board also considered your letter dated 4 March 2014 with
enclosure.

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 CNAP
letter and the advisory opinion dated 2 December 2013. 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,
I SD ao

ROBERT D ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9684 14

    Original file (NR9684 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 23 April 2015. 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 this regard, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR1829-13

    Original file (NR1829-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 March 2013. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof 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 material error or injustice.

  • 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 | CY2013 | NR4825 13

    Original file (NR4825 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 24 October 2013. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in 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 material error OF injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2075 14

    Original file (NR2075 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 7 April 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, tthe burden is on the applicant to ‘demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01524-01

    Original file (01524-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    reques:ed removal of your failure of your naval record pursuant to the A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session? opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 23 April attached. Enclosure (1) is returned, recommending disapproval of request to backdate his date of rank.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01135-06

    Original file (01135-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJG Docket No: 1135-06 19 December 2006This 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, in effect, that your naval record be corrected to show that you were not removed from the Fiscal Year 2003 or 2004 Lieutenant All Fully Qualified Officers Promotion List and that you were...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2069 13

    Original file (NR2069 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 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. 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 | CY2010 | 03625-10

    Original file (03625-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your request for investigation of the reporting Senior's actions was not considered, as the Board for Correction of Naval Records is not an investigative body. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 2010. The Board also considered the NPC e-mail dated 3 September 2009 with attachment (DD Form 214), a copy of which is attached, and your letters dated 20 August 2009 with enclosures, 30 October 2009 and 2 February 2010.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08895-10

    Original file (08895-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 January 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof 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 material error or...