“+ Biase paneer ners, eh EETRICNIT OIG THE NEV
Bena. REPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
wee 7s
ibe ‘
oe Wes
ie BOARD FOR GURRLCHUN OF RAVAL REGORGS
704 §. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1007
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
BUG
Docket No.
763
14 October 2014
Dear Sa?
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.
It is noted that you have not applied to the Naval Discharge
Review Board (NDRB) for a possible upgrade of your
characterization of service and a change of your narracive
reason for separation. 1 have enciosed a copy of NDRE‘ s
application form for your CONVENLENCE.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considerecd your |
application on 14 October 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, your naval record and applicabie statutes,
regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the
advisory opinion from the Office of the Judge advocate General
dated 4 April 2014, & COpy of which is attached. Finally, the
Board considered your counsel's letters dated 21 February 2012
with enclosure, and 6 August 2014.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
snsufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice. In this comnection, the Board substantially
concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion.
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 enLitled to have
the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and
material evidence within one year from the date of the Board's
decision. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by
the Board prior to making its decision in your case. 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,
ROBERT J. O’'NETLL
Fuecutive Director
Enclosures
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4293 14
You requested removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) entry dated 23 October 2013 and your undated rebuttal. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 April 2015. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4147 14
A three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 October 2014. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval the burden is om the applicant record, probable material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5677 14
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. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. 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 | NR3321 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 December 2014. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by NPC (memo. NR3321-14 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 | NR4714 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 December 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. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4396 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 October 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. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR11369 14
The page 11 entry was not considered, as the attached e-mail dated 28 October 2014 from Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) shows that neither the entry nor your rebuttal appears in your Official Military Personnel File. A three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 November 2014. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its gecision in this case.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9352 14
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 5 August 2014, a copy of which is attached. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. 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 | NR6066 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 November 2014. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by OCNO Memo 7220 Ser Wi30C/14U1348 dated 15 October 2014, a copy of which was sent to you on 18 October 2014; it was returned to sender on 5 November 2014. De Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5890 14
WRO5890-14 28 October 2014 This is in reference to your appiication for correction to your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 United States A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 October 2014. 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. ...