Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR11671 14
Original file (NR11671 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 5S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

HD
Docket No: NR1L1671-14
29 January 2015

 

Dear Staff sergeant Jn

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 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 15 October 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 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
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,

 

OBERT J. OO’ NEILG
Executive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 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 | 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 | NR11241 14

    Original file (NR11241 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 | CY2015 | NR678 15

    Original file (NR678 15.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 March 2015. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 23 January 2015, a copy of which is attached. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2015 | NR65 15

    Original file (NR65 15.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. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 30 December 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 | CY2015 | NR679 15

    Original file (NR679 15.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navai Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 March 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 | NR10692 14

    Original file (NR10692 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 26 March 2015. 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 | NR11683 14

    Original file (NR11683 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    a oe — me AP wern sent DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY ee OR BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS AN Se. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 January 2015. 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 | NR11687 14

    Original file (NR11687 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 22 January 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...