Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR11934 14
Original file (NR11934 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

 

EGA
Docket No: 11934-14
30 April 2015

This 1s in reference to your reconsideration request dated

3 November 2014. You previously petitioned the Board and were
advised in our letter of 28 January 2010, that your application
had been denied.

Your current request has been carefully examined by a three-
member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session. Documentary material considered
by the Board consisted of your application and any material
submitted in support of your application.

In regard to your request for a personal appearance, be advised
that Board regulations state personal appearances before the
Board are not granted as a right, but only when the Board
determines that such an appearance will serve some useful
purpose. In your case, the Board determined that a personal
appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on
the evidence of the record.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board determined that the assertion you submitted,
even though not previously considered by the Board, was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice. The Board determined that your post service
claim for compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs
for exposure to hepatitis was not enough to outweigh the
significant misconduct you committed while on active duty.
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 and
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by
the Board within one year from the date of the Board’s decision.
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

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5022 14

    Original file (NR5022 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 7 May 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. In your case, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of the record.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR13109 14

    Original file (NR13109 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. In your case, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of the record. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7527 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR7527 14_Redacted.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 June 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. In your case, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4092 14

    Original file (NR4092 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 20 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. In your case, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of the record.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4367 14

    Original file (NR4367 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. In your case, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of the record.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7592 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR7592 14_Redacted.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 July 2015. In your case, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 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 | NR5656 14

    Original file (NR5656 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 16 June 2015. Finally, with regard to your assertions, the Board noted that your NUP was appropriately documented in your official military personnel file in accordance with applicable regulations and there is no error or injustice. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6913 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR6913 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three- member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 July 2015. Concerning your assertion that you were discharged due to your dismissed domestic battery charge in civilian court, there is no indication in the record that this was the case; you were discharged for willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer’s military protective order to stay away from your spouse. In your case, the Board determined...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5466 14

    Original file (NR5466 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 15 May 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. In your case, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of the record.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4166 14

    Original file (NR4166 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application. In your case, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 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.