Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8212 13
Original file (NR8212 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1601
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

HD

Docket No: NR8212-13
@ May 2014 2014

USN

 

Dear Petty Officer Ey

‘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 correction of your Performance Summary Report (PSR)
to show your promotion recommendation in the enlisted performance
evaluation report for 16 November 2011 to 15 November 2012 was “Must
Promote,” rather than “Promotable.” You also requested a special
selection board (SSB) for the Fiscal Year 14 Chief Petty Officer

Selection Board.

Tt is noted that NPC has corrected the PSR as you requested.

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

20 February 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 opinions furnished by the Navy
Personnel Command dated 23 October and 5 November 2013, copies of
which are 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 inj ustice. In
this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory
O O

opinion dated 5 November 2013 in finding your request for SSB
consideration should be denied. The Board also noted that the
evaluation report for the period in question on file in your Official
Military Personnel File reflected the correct promotion
‘recommendation of “Must Promote.” 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,

ROBERT D 4SALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00283-01

    Original file (00283-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 21 March 2001 and undated, copies of which are attached. References (b) through (d) refer to clinical studies on head injury and multiple sclerosis. '_s request to have his records corrected to show that he was retired from the Marine Corps by reason of "combat related" physical disability in the rank of major.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05889-01

    Original file (05889-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 19 November 2001 arid 11 February 2002, copies of which are attached. The member requests his fitness reports for the periods 26 May 1999 to 3 1 October 1999 and 1 November 1999 to 3 1...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08069-08

    Original file (08069-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You further requested reconsideration for retention in the Navy. It is noted that the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) corrected the PSR as you requested, in August 2008. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 March 2009.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07858-07

    Original file (07858-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Administrative changes correct the administrative blocks of the fitness or evaluation report. We recommend no further action be taken by the Board for Corrections of Naval Records as the member’s record has already been corrected administratively.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07681-07

    Original file (07681-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. F The reporting senior has submitted, and we have accepted a supplemental fitness report fom entry in member’s OMPF and it has been posted to member’s PSR g. The member does not prove the report to be unjust or in error. We recommend no further action be taken by the Board for Corrections of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09482-08

    Original file (09482-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 April 2009. 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 | NR5583 14

    Original file (NR5583 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    B three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2014. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. Consequently, when applying fora correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07367-06

    Original file (07367-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board also considered your letter dated 16 January 2007.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. Subsequently, the member’s record was reviewed and he was selected for promotion to the grade of Lieutenant Commander, with this report in his record. h. If directed by the Board for Correction of Naval Records, PERS-3 11 will accept a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR6312-13

    Original file (NR6312-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 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 | CY2013 | NR475-13

    Original file (NR475-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...