DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
7O1 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD. SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
HD
Docket No: NR978-14
26 June 2014
Dear Petty Officer yp
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 that the enlisted performance evaluation report for
16 November 2007 to 15 November 2008 be modified by removing, from
block 43 (“Comments on Performance”), “- #36. Failed to live up to
Core Values by procrasting [sic] and submitting late LDO [limited
duty officer] package. [Your] integrity was compromised when
timeliness of submission was questioned.” and raising the mark in
block 36 ("Military Bearing/Character”) from “2.0" (second lowest
of five possible marks) to “3.0” (third best).
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on
26 June 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
4 April 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 to
establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. In
this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory
opinion, noting that the comment at issue does not suggest
application for LDO is required. 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 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,
i ey Sane
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02142-01
Every selection board considers a group of highly This process inevitably results in a Candidates are often not aware that members participating on 4. a selection board as a voting member, recorder, or affiliated with the selection board process'in any way, are prohibited from discussing why one particular individual is/was selected over another. The proceedings of selection boards are confidential counseling of failed to Subj: OMMENDATION IN CASE OF PNC(SW) The Deputy Chief of Naval...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07547-02
In addition, the Board considered the undated advisory opinion with enclosure furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps, a copy of which is attached. MMPR MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: Encl: ASE OF MASTER SERG MC (a) MMER Route Sheet of 3 Ott 02 (1) Military Personnel Procurement Branch reply to r dated 14 Jul 60 MSgt Reference Sergea in the case of 1. s requesting Master information as to why he never reached his goal of becoming...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07246-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 September 2010. 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
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 | CY2007 | 00685-07
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 found your not having been selected for promotion to CW04 did not justify reversing its previous action. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04288-06
In the alternative, you requested that your captain date of rank and effective date be adjusted from 1 September 1990 to 1 December 1989, to reflect selection by the FY 1990 Captain Selection Board, vice the FY 1991 Captain Selection Board, as your redesignation as an unrestricted officer came too late for you to be considered in the promotion zone by the earlier promotion board. Applicant was selected for redesignation for unrestricted officer as announced in reference (c) . The FY91 USMC...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07237-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 March 2011. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 26 July 2010, 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 | NR8180 14
Rh three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24. 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 material error or...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8180 14
Rh three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24. 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 material error or...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09981-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ef 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.