aan ie x DEFPARIMENT UT TRE NAY Y
Me ;
a pp pn rap CAPPFCTION AF NEVA! RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD. S!
TE
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
HD
Docket No: NR2120-14
20 November 2014
Dear Mr. Cd
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. You requested removing your Physical Fitness
assessment failures from Cycles 1 and 2, 2013. You also requested
reinstatement to active duty in pay grade E-8 or, if not reinstated,
changing the reason for discharge from “Weight Control Failure” to
“Retired or Medically Retired” with retirement in pay grade E-8 with
Bh three-member panel of the Board for Correction of
sitting in ex cutive session, considered your applica
20 November 2014 Your allegations of error and injustice were
reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations anda
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 opinions furnished by the Office of
the Chief of Naval Operations N170 dated 24 June and 24 September
2014, copies of which are attached. The Board also considered your
letters dated 8 August and 13 November 2014 each with enclosures.
Fr
Q)
a
t
td
mM
Q
O
Ky
on
m
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 advisory
opinions. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The
names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon
request.
S
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. Inthis regard, it 1s 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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR6340 13
It is noted that the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) has administratively removed the contested special evaluation and reinstated your original TIR and effective dates for pay grade E-6. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 20 September and 16 December 2013, 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5583 14
B three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2014. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. Consequently, when applying fora 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 | NR9929 14
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 | NR3861 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 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. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5598 14
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, any material submitted in support of your application, and your previous case file. Consequently, when _applying for a correction of an official record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00799-02
A medical board was prepared in January 1998 and PEB's Record Review Panel In June, 1998, the forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for consideration. Lumbar Decompression and Low Back Pain Status Post Fusion (72420) The Record Review Panel found the member unfit for duty under VA Code 5295, rated his condition at 10% disability and separation pay. However, Therefore, after careful consideration of all relevant medical evidence, viewed in a .light most favorable to the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01445-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 June 2009. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 20 April 2009 with enclosure, 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 injustite.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9925 14
JSR Docket No: NR9925-14 fu November
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04334-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 2011. 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 Roard considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 24 May 2010 with attachments, a copy of which is attached. After...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9945 14
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 4 September 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. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case.