Search Decisions

Decision Text

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. ee es ns mm pe pew ae

Hi SG, SOURTUGCUSI ASAD, SUITOC toe:

ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

HD

Docket No: NR11683-14
22 January 2015

 

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 22 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 submizted in
Support thereof, your naval record ang 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

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,

ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR12997 14

    Original file (NR12997 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. 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. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case.

  • 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9364 14

    Original file (NR9364 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 8 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 | 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 | CY2014 | NR9778 14

    Original file (NR9778 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 23 October 2014. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. 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 | NR9787 14

    Original file (NR9787 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Further, the Board particularly noted that you ing senior have provided nothing showing that either the reporti or the reviewing officer has acknowledged that the two-tiered evaluation system, to which you and the statement dated 1 May — a he all ee 2014 from Captain i -, USMC refer, was applied in preparing your fitness report. 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...

  • 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 | CY2014 | NR11670 14

    Original file (NR11670 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Bb three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 February 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 | CY2013 | NR8517 13

    Original file (NR8517 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 (HOMC) Performance Fvaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 22 October 2013, and the advisory opinion from HQMC dated 8 January 2014, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...

  • 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.