DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
7018, COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
JSR
Docket No: NR2425-14
18 September 2014
Dear Sergeant fic
This ig 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. °
“A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considéred “your —
application on 18 September 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, your naval record and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the
advisory opinion from Headquarters Marine Corps dated 17 June
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. In this connection, the Board substantially
concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion.
Specifically concerning the contested entry dated 22 September
2010, the Board was unable to find the matter addressed was too
minor to be the subject of a formal counseling entry, nor could
it find this entry reflected the personal opinion of your First
Sergeant, rather than your performance. The Board found the
fact that the pertinent Fitness reports did not address the
contested entries does not invalidate them. In view of the
above, 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 canmmot 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,
ROBERT J. O’NETUL
Executive Director
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0348 14
BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 June 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5207 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your — application on 18 September 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR11369 14
The page 11 entry was not considered, as the attached e-mail dated 28 October 2014 from Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) shows that neither the entry nor your rebuttal appears in your Official Military Personnel File. A three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 November 2014. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its gecision in this case.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5123 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 January 2015. in addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion from Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) dated 20 October 2014 and the e-mail from HQMC dated 8 September 2014, copies of which are attached. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0438 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 June 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 material error or injustice. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8532 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 July 2014. in addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 18 October 2013, the e- Mail from HQMC dated 19 November 2013, and the advisory opinions from HOMC dated 25 March 2014 with enclosure and 8 May 2014, copies of which are attached, - After careful and conscientious...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4293 14
You requested removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) entry dated 23 October 2013 and your undated rebuttal. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 April 2015. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0776 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 June 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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion in finding your RFC should not be set aside,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4263 14
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by NPC dated 26 September 2014 with enclosure and 17 October 2014, copies of which are attached. 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 | CY2010 | 05827-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 November 2010. 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...