DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
HD
Docket No: NR7289-13
17 April 2014
Dear Petty Officer Say
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.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on
17 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
6 September 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. The Board found your having been marked above “2.0” (second
lowest) of five possible marks) in block 33 (“Professional
Knowledge”) of the contested enlisted performance evaluation report,
in violation of Naval Facilities Engineering Command Instruction
1410.1, paragraph 10.e(1), was an error in your favor. The Board
was unable to find you did, as you assert, complete all requirements
for the Seabee Combat Warfare Specialist designator within the
prescribed period. In this regard, the Board noted that your record
reflects no endorsement from the reporting senior on your statement
to the report at issue, in which you included that assertion. 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,
Tee DS. a
ROBERT D.” ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director
Enclosure
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 | CY2013 | NR475-13
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the fitness report in question as you requested. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 April 2013. 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 warranting removal of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8338 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 March 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. 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 | CY2013 | NR4692 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0819 14
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 7015. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnishec by the Navy Personnel Command dated 16 April 2014, 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 | 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 | CY2013 | NR6975 13
Your previous case, docket number 08435-10, was denied on 4 November 2010. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7273 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 August 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, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2785 14
“you requested completely removing the fitness report for 1 July 2011 to 10 January 2012.. Tt is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report by removing the entire section K (reviewing officer’s marks and comments) . R three-member panel of the Board for €orrection of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 April 2014. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official | naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09103-08
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. Although the Board voted not to modify further the fitness report in question, you may submit your letter of 15 March 2008, with the reporting senior’s endorsement, to future selection boards. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...