Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8666 13
Original file (NR8666 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
HD
Docket No: NR8666-13
20 November 2014

 

tion for correction of your naval
ovisions of title 10 of the United States

This is in reference to your applica

record pursuant to the pr
Code, section 1552.

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

20 November 2014. your allegations of error and injustice were

reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and

rev segues applicable to the proceedsPat! this Board. Documentary

material considered by the Board consisted of your application,
together with all material submitted in support tl
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. L 5

Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy
pergonnel Command dated 2° january and 20 August 2014, copies of
are attached. The Board also considered your letters dated 30 July

and 15 November 2014, each with enclosures.

which

after careful and conscientious consideration of the entir
the Board found that the evidence submitted was insuff3
establish the existence of probable material error or in
this connection, the Board substantially concurre
opinion dated 20 August 2014. accordingly: your application has
peen denied. The names and votes of the members of the f
pe furnished upon request.

LILES Tn

ces of your case are such that
e entitled to have the Board

It is regretted that the circumstan
favorable action cannot pe taken. Youer
reconsider its decision upon submission of new evidence within one

year from the date of the Board’ s decision. New evidence is evidence

not previously considered by the Boa

rd prior to making its decision
in this 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.

Singerely,

  

ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3872 14

    Original file (NR3872 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 November 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 applicable statutes, regulations...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4201 14

    Original file (NR4201 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    “pocumentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, requiations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by OCNO memo 7220 Ser Ni30C/14U1201 dated 11 September 2014, a COpy of which is attached. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9794 14

    Original file (NR9794 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, cogether with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable SS SLaLUTEeSs, to addition, the Board considered the regulations and policies. New evidence 15 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4162 14

    Original file (NR4162 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 5 November 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 | NR5123 14

    Original file (NR5123 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 8 January 2015. in addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion from Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) dated 20 October 2014 and the e-mail from HQMC dated 8 September 2014, copies of which are attached. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7873 14

    Original file (NR7873 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application. 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. hiter careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9364 14

    Original file (NR9364 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 8 January 2015. 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 | NR2481 14

    Original file (NR2481 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 5 November 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. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9959 14

    Original file (NR9959 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 13 November 2014. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board a>, 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 | NR3138 14

    Original file (NR3138 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This is an important feature of the law because the transferability Docket No. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board tprior to making#its decision in this case. Consequently, when -appiying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.