Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR12084 14
Original file (NR12084 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

 

JET
Docket No. NR12084-14
9 Mar 15

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval
record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records
(BCNR), sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9
March 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 mecend and applicable
statutes, regulations and policies.

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.

Specifically, the Board found that in your application you stated “I
recently spoke to PSD on P=: they gave me a guideline
on how to put a Navy recortds corrections package together. This was

the first time that I was made aware of the package that needed to be
sent to BCNR.” However, our records indicate that you previously
submitted an application to the BCNR on 31 October 2010 for the same
issue you are currently petitioning the board. The Board heard your
case on 29 March 2011 under docket number #13731-10 and denied your
petition. You were then sent a letter of the Board's decision. The
Board has determined that the documentary material you have now
submitted in support of your reconsideration case, are not new and do
not support evidence of an error or injustice. 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
Docket No. NR12084-14

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 | CY2006 | 02756-06

    Original file (02756-06.rtf) 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.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 Board was not persuaded that your cardiovascular disease was the direct result of a combat...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05029-07

    Original file (05029-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your request should be based upon information that was not already contained in your original application package and should includeSubj: DENIAL OF CRSC IN THE CASE DOCKET NUMBER MCO6-02904supporting documentation, as appropriate. Reconsideration by the CRSC Branch is appropriate under any of the following circumstances:(1) You believe this decision is incorrect due to an administrative error or incorrect/incomplete information. to review CRSC decisions.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02264-06

    Original file (02264-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 February 2007. Your case for Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) is not supported by the relevant documentary information provided.2. Reconsideration by the CRSC Branch is appropriate under any of the following circumstances:(1) You believe this decision is incorrect due to an administrative error or incorrect/incomplete information.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03457-01

    Original file (03457-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 July 2001. 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 | CY2001 | 08443-00

    Original file (08443-00.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 2001. 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 | CY2002 | 02778-00

    Original file (02778-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You alleged that your spot promotion correspondence was mailed for consideration by the FY 00 First Quarter Spot Selection Board, convened on 5 November 1999. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 April 2001. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01862-00

    Original file (01862-00.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 advisory opinion furnished by 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. request to with back pay,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00668-08

    Original file (00668-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Sincerely, Enclosure 5420 OPNAV N135 05 Mar 08 From: Ms. Heather L. Pouncey, Physical Readiness Program Manager (OPNAV N135) To: Heather Topping, Assistant for BCNR Matters (PERS-31C) Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CASE OF Ref: (a) OPNAVINST 6110.1H (b) BCNR Case File 00668-08 Encl: (1) PRIMS Record (NAVPERSCOM Official data) 1. Sailor petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) in accordance with reference (a), to correct errors and/or remove...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02121-08

    Original file (02121-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered an advisory opinion furnished by NPC memo 1430 Ser 811/304 of 8 Apr 08. The petitioner is requesting retroactive advancement to E6 and E7 and advancement to E8 based on awards not recorded on DD Form 214. This is an advisory memorandum to reference (a) for the use by the Board for correction of Naval Records (BCNR) only.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 07309-98

    Original file (07309-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 September 1999. 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. Since you have been treated no differently than others who have been similarly detached, the Board finds no basis for removing the NJP...