DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5109
HD
Docket No. NR69375-13
24 April 2014
Dear Mr. a
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. Your previous case, docket number 08435-10, was
denied on 4 November 2010.
You again requested that the performance evaluation report for
16 March to 11 December 2009 be removed or modified by deleting the
comments from block 43 (“Comments on Performance”) and either
deleting the mark of “not recommended” in block 47 (*Retention”) or
changing the mark to “recommended.” You again further requested
that you be immediately reenlisted with back pay.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on
24 April 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
advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated
5 December 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 advisory
opinion. Without the VRC-30 instruction you say Personnel Support
Detachment Colorado told you provided that only the commanding
officer could revoke a member’s recommendation for retention, the
Board was unable to find that your reporting senior, the
administrative officer, did not have the authority to revoke your
recommendation for retention. Further, the Board noted that the
reenlistment code you were assigned, RE-R1 (recommended for
preferred reenlistment) made you eligible for reenlistment. Inview
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,
yen | Renn
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08435-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 November 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 10 September 2010, a copy of which is attached. 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 | 10720-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 13 January 2011. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 28 October 2010, a copy of whichis attached. 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 inj ustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03701-11
The Board also considered your counsel’s letters dated 11 November 2010 and 22 April 2011 with enclosure. Since the Board still found no defect in your fitness report record, it had no basis to recommend your advancement to either pay grade E-8 or E-9,. In view of the above, the Board again voted to deny relief.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8180 14
Rh three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24. 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 material error or...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8180 14
Rh three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24. 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 material error or...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0978 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 June 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 | CY2014 | NR8208 14
You again requested removal of the fitness report for 3 June to 2 September 2011. In your previous case, docket number 1076-12, this ~equest was denied on 26 April 2012. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board's file on your previous case, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies..
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07743-98
In the performance evaluation for You were Regulations allow for the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is discharged due to a diagnosed personality disorder. evaluations and the psychologist's opinion that you could be at risk to harm yourself or others were sufficient to support the decision not to recommend you for reenlistment and to assign you an RE-4 reenlistment code. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 09459-97
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 May 1999. 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 marks, comments and recommendations contained in the report are the responsibility of the reporting senior.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 06046-98
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 finding that the reporting senior ’s letter to your physical evaluation board did not contradict the contested fitness report, they noted that he expressly acknowledged, in the report, that the “problem” he cited “has not prevented [you] from continuing to carry out [your] routine medical...