Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR11195 14
Original file (NR11195 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

JSR
Docket No: 11195-14
30 April 2015

 

Dear Lieutenant tmaages

Th-is 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
Your allegations of error and injustice

with administrative regulations and procedures

the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material
> the Board consisted of your application, together with
um ; e

   

REter 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. The Board was unable to find undue administrative delay
in your removal from the Fiscal Year 12 Active Lieutenant
All-Fully-Qualified-Officers List. 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 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 injustace,

Sincerely,

   

ROBERT J. O'NEILL

Executive Director

 

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09105-08

    Original file (09105-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the decision of the Navy Discharge Review Board (NDRB) dated 6 August 2007, 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. 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 | CY2010 | 09308-10

    Original file (09308-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 16 September 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your current application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board's files on your prior cases (docket numbers 07213-07 and 08633-09), your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...

  • 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02807-09

    Original file (02807-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 July 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 | CY2009 | 08633-09

    Original file (08633-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 3 September 2009. Further, the Board noted that the modification of this report directed by PERB in your previous case was implemented on 7 August 2007, before the FY 2009 Lieutenant Colonel. 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 | NR11256 14

    Original file (NR11256 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    NR11256-14 22 January 2015 This is in reference to your counsel’s letter on your behalf dated 25 September 2014 with enclosures, seeking reconsideration of your previous application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552, In your previous case, docket number 9039-13, you requested reinstatement to your class and promotion to lieutenant colonel and colonel. This request was denied on 14 August 2014. , A three-member...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9948 14

    Original file (NR9948 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 6 November 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 or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07198-08

    Original file (07198-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2008. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in Support thereof, the Board’s files on the cases of another Marine officer of the same name and middle initial as yours (docket numbers 1029-06 and 3637-07), your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2944 14

    Original file (NR2944 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative reguiations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board, Documentary material considered by the Board consiste@ of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. Consequently, when applying for a correction...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09336-09

    Original file (09336-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board’s file on your prior case (docket number 8846-08), 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 material error or injustice.