Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR11241 14
Original file (NR11241 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
7901 S, COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

HD
Docket No: NR11i241-14
29 vanuary 4uLls

 

meee coy

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of thé
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 29 January 2015. 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. In addition, the Board considered the
report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation
Review Board (PERB), dated 30 September 2014, a copy of which is

attached. The Board also considered your letter dated € October
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. In this connection, the Board substantially
concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB.
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
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

3 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.

el nerthfL e

Sincerely,

ROBERT J. O’‘ NEILL
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 | NR4253 14

    Original file (NR4253 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 100) ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 JSR Docket No: NR4253-14 2o May 2014 Dear Gunnery Sergeant Sy 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 29 May 2014. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR11671 14

    Original file (NR11671 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 29 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 | NR9960 14

    Original file (NR9960 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 13 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 | CY2014 | NR10592 14

    Original file (NR10592 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 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 or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8890 14

    Original file (NR8890 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 9 April 2015. 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. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR12003 14

    Original file (NR12003 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board also considered a COPY of your fitness report for 15 January to 2 October 2010, whose removal was directed by the HOMC Performance Evaluation Review Board, and the HOMC e-mail dated 21 November 2014 (the basis for the PERB action), a COPY of which is also attached. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4255 14

    Original file (NR4255 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    fitness report meets the criteria for derogatory material in Sect A, Item 6B and is rendered adverse IAW [in accordance with] MCO [Marine Corps Order] P1610.7F. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC)} Performance Evaluation Review Board {PERB}), dated 31 March 2014 as amended by the HOMC e-mail dated 10 April 2014 with attachments, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR11236 14

    Original file (NR11236 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 29 January 2015. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 30 September 2014, 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 | NR4252 14

    Original file (NR4252 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed the requested changes to the marks in sections E.2, F.1 and G.1. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 May 2014. 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.