Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR10585 14
Original file (NR10585 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
Tt Se Seeeeerr OT TRE ArTAWY
DEPARimWwicimi wv t S Sas
cat enor cs Tink} Mme bs WAL PEC opms

701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

JSR
Docket No: NR10585-14

A TNiaramner 2014

 

Dear Staff sergeant
+

?

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 4 December 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 thereol, your naval record and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the

report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation
Review Board (PERB), dated 16 September 2014, 4 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 comments contained in the report of the PERB.
The Board found that you may ask the reporting senior to submit
supplemental comments, reflecting the result of the review of
your special court-martial, pursuant to Marine Corps Order
P1610.7F, paragraph 8007.3. 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.

t is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
hat favorable action cannot be taken. You are en 1 }

ere

coo

An

rn
the Board 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 Board
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.

Sincerely,

ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Fxecutive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR10596 14

    Original file (NR10596 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “MRO [Marine reported on] being assigned to the BCP [Body Composition Program] “ A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2014 Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR10588 14

    Original file (NR10588 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board found it an immaterial error that the corrected ending date of the first report at issue and the corrected beginning date of the second report are the same date. 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 | NR10590 14

    Original file (NR10590 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested completely removing the fitness reports for 1 April to 30 November 2008 and 1 December 2008 to 1 March 2009 oO It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed completely removing the contested report for 1 April to 30 November 2008 and modifying the report for 1 December 2008 to 1 March 2009 (by sana from section K.4 (reviewing officer's comments), “[You] woul benetit + rom increasing [your] follow through and mission erat ent A three-member panel of the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9956 14

    Original file (NR9956 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. 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 | CY2014 | NR4734 14

    Original file (NR4734 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested completely removing Addendum Page 2 of 2 from your fitness report for 7 October 2010 to 25 April 2011. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested Addendum Page by removing “In fact, I would rank [you] among the pottom 1/2 of all Marine Sergeants I have observed over the past 22 years of service.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR10695 14

    Original file (NR10695 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DErARIMWEMN! Ur the RAY T PAAR PARP FRM PFr Ee TION Ae NAN Se preompr 701 5, COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 100i ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Dear Master ‘

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR10584 14

    Original file (NR10584 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 4 December 2014. 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 oF injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8270 14

    Original file (NR8270 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 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 | NR3809 14

    Original file (NR3809 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in ac regulations and procedures applicable Documentary material considere of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Board. 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 | NR9421 14

    Original file (NR9421 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 18 December 2014. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in t support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board {(PERB), dated 8 August...