DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
7015. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
, ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
HD
Docket No: NR2338-14
12 March 2015
Dear amenity
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 that your enlisted performance evaluation report for
16 September 2011 to 27 August 2012 be removed; that you be advanced
to ADCS (pay grade E-8) on the date your lineal number would have
caused you to be advanced; that the service record page 13.
(“Administrative Remarks”) entries dated 27 August 2012 relating to
defrocking and withdrawal of recommendation for advancement be
removed; that you receive back pay from the date of your advancement
to the present; that you receive credit for time in gyvade fox pay,
Advancement and retirement purposes from the date of your advancement
to the present; and that your Navy Fnlisted Classification (NEC)
codes of 9508 (RDC (recruit division commander)) and 9502
(instructor) be restored.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on
12 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 and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the
advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated
16 July and 4 December 2014, copies of which are attached. The Board
also considered your counsel’s letter dated 28 February 2015 with
attachments.
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 inj ustice. 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.
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 ‘0 O* NETLL
Executive Director
Enclosure
Copy to:
Mr. Gary Myers
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR10079 14
You requested that the evaluation and counseling record for 26 September 2011 to 27 January 2012 be modified by removing, from block 41 ("Comments on Performance”), “Member received counseling for unduly familiar relationship with subordinate and appears to have corrected behavior accordingly.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considerec your application on 16 March 2015. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 05470-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 February 2012. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Chief of Naval Operations dated 5 July 2011 with attachments and the Navy Personnel Command dated 19 July 2011, 8 August 2011 and 10 August 2011 with attachment, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5468 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 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. 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 | NR8208 14
You again requested removal of the fitness report for 3 June to 2 September 2011. In your previous case, docket number 1076-12, this ~equest was denied on 26 April 2012. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board's file on your previous case, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies..
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5338 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 May 2015. Your commanding officer’s decision to impose NUP was appropriate, and is administratively and procedurally correct as written and filed. 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 | 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 | NR11964 14
You requested completely removing the fitness report tor 14 June to 31 October 2012. your applicacio ogether with all material submivrec Ath support thereo applicable statutes, regulations anc ft the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 27 October 2014, a copy of which is attached. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. Consequently, when...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2015 | NR1053 15
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 3 February 2015, 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6478 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 April 2015. The Board further found that you attended the Naval Science 401 class that was rescheduled for 7 September 2012 by showing up and signing for a textbook for the class. 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 | NR13149 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 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, reguiations and policies, In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 8 December 2014, a...