Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0280 14
Original file (NR0280 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

701 8. COURTHOUSE RD SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON VA 22204-2490

 

BAN
Docket No.NRO0280-14
28 April 2014

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 28 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, your naval record and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies. The Board considered the advisory
opinion (A/O) furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) memo
1400/3 MMPR-2 of 3 Apr 2014, a copy of which is being provided
to you.

Therefore, 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 making this determination, the Board
substantially concurred with the comments contained in the A/O.
Specifically, the Board noted that only Marines who are released
from the active duty component are issued a DD Form 214. A
promotion in rank while in the Reserves does not warrant another
DD Form 214. 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 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 also important to keep in mind
Docket No.NROO280-14

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. Z2SALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8611 13

    Original file (NR8611 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    — Tt is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 2 June 2011 to 28 February 2012 by filing a Memorandum for the Record showing that section A, item 6.a (“Commendatory Material”) is marked, and including in section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”) “Directed Comments: Item 6A: MRO [Marine reported on] was awarded a Meritorious Mast and two Letters of Appreciation during this reporting period.” A...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9424 14

    Original file (NR9424 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 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. 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 | NR5174 14

    Original file (NR5174 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 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. Consequentiy, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden-is ‘on the applicant to demonstrate the.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR676 14

    Original file (NR676 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive gession, congidered 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. 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 | NR4293 14

    Original file (NR4293 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | NR4757 14

    Original file (NR4757 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested removing the fitness report for 2 March to 30 June 2013. , Tt is noted that CMC has directed filing in your record copies of your four letters of appreciation (LOA’s) dated 20 April, 4 May, 5 June and 12 June 2013, and modifying the contested fitness report by marking section A, item 6.a (*Commendatory Material”) and adding to section I (reporting senior’s SPArecced: an@ Additional Comments”) ‘Directed Comment: received four LOA’s for volunteer community service.” A...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9150 14

    Original file (NR9150 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It ig noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), "MRO [Marine reported on] best performs in an environment working for staif noncommissioned officers and senior enlisted Marines who can supervise her daily tasks so as to ensure details are adhered to and timeliness is attained.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0127 14

    Original file (NR0127 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 24 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 | NR6493 14

    Original file (NR6493 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 12 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 | NR4761 14

    Original file (NR4761 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has Girected modifying the contested report for 28 April to 31 December 2011 by removing, from section K.4 (reviewing officer's (RO’s) comments), “MRO [Marine reported on] continues to develop and hone skills required to effectively support Special Operations Marines in combat operations.” and further directed removing the entire section K (RO’s marks and comments) from each of the other three reports at issue. A three-member panel...