Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1534 14
Original file (NR1534 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

 

HD
Docket No: NR1534-14
& August 2014

 

Dear Command#r ay

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval
record pursuant to the provisions of titie 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

J August 2014. 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 and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the
advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated

7 May 2014, a copy of which ig attached. The Board also considered
your e-mail dated 5 August 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 materiai error or injustice. In
this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory
opinion, noting that Bureau of Naval Personnel Instruction 1610.10C
authorized two “Early Promote” marks in a summary group of eight
commanders, not one. 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. 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,

Re SS, em

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7128 13

    Original file (NR7128 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 August 2014. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together wath all material submitted in support thereof 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 material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR6601 13

    Original file (NR6601 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material supmitted in support thereof and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Tn addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 25 February and 11 July 2014, copies of which are attached. 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 | NR2680 14

    Original file (NR2680 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof and applicable statutes, regulations anc policies. in addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 10 June 2014, a copy of which is attached. Consequently, when Vw | applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7927 14

    Original file (NR7927 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 October 2014. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. Consequentiy, 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 | NR2614 14

    Original file (NR2614 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 HD Docket No: NR2614-14 28 August 2014 Dear Petty Officer

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR9101-13

    Original file (NR9101-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested completely removing the fitness report for 30 March to 6 August 2012 or, as a second preference, modifying the report by removing, from block 41 (“Comments on Performance”), “detachment for cause.” “A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 2014. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1821 14

    Original file (NR1821 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered yout application on 4 August 2014. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable stacutes, regulations and policies. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was snsufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4717 13

    Original file (NR4717 13.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 August 2014. in addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) Performance Evaluation Review Boarg (PERB) dated 17 May 2013, the e-mail from HOMC dated 18 July 2013, and the advisory opinions furnished by HOMC dated 18 February 2014 with attachment (MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, Subject: Promotion Recommendation...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5248 13

    Original file (NR5248 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    pocument.ary 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 OF injustice. applying for 4 correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR1602 13

    Original file (NR1602 13.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 August 2014. 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...