DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
JET
Docket No. NR2433-14
6 Apr 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,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on
6 April 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 record and
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board
considered the advisory opinion furnished by CNRC ltr 1133 Ser N32 of
3 March 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. The
Board found that you originally contracted for the New Accession
Training Master-At-Arms (NAT/MA) rating with a $10,000 Enlistment
Bonus (Annex A to the DD Form 4). While still in the Delayed Entry
Program (DEP), you signed a new Annex B before your Classifier
acknowledging the removal of the $10,000 Enlistment Bonus. This was
also noted on the Record of Military Processing - Armed Forces of the
United States (DD Form 1966/3); where you initialed Block 32.c., then
signed Block 34.d.(1) and dated Block 34.d.(2). Your application
claims that the enlistment bonus was taken away on Annex B to the DD
Form 4, because you did not sign that form. However, Navy Recruiting
Command’s Inspector Generals’ office performed.an inquiry into your
allegations and “was unable to determine if the document was forged
due to a he said-he said situation,” and the fact the personnel were
no longer available. Therefore, in making its determination, the
Board concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of
the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
Docket No. NR2433-14
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,
O'NEILL
Executive Director
Enclosure: CNRC ltr 1133 Ser N32 of 3 Mar 15
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04237-01
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by NAVCRUITCOM memorandum 1133 Ser a copy of which is attached. 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. enclosure (2) and the DD Form 1966 contained in enclosure the applicant was authorized to enlist in paygrade attend members must enlist in eligibility for an enlistment bonus via guaranteed Class school.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04999-01
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. opinion furnished by CNRC memorandum which is attached. #an advisory memorandum for use by the Board for Enclosure (1) is returned.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7220 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 March 2015. 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 | CY2001 | 06207-01
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD S 2 NAVY ANNE X WASHINGTON DC 20370-510 0 JLP:ddj Docket No: 6207-01 27 November 2001 This is in provisions of title reference to your application for- correction of your naval record pursuant to the IO of the Ilnited States Code, section 1552. wert‘ reviewed in accordance wit panel of the three-mrmher A session, considered your iii_justice to the proceedings your application, applicable opinion furnished by copy of which is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR949 14
BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 September 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 Docker Na WNRONG49-14 naval record, the “an is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8536 13
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. the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CNRC Memo 1133 Ser N32 of 6 May 14, a copy of which is attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the,zburden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8773 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 March 2015. 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 Docket No.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1325 14
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 CNRC Memo 1133 Ser N32 of 15 Apr 14, a copy of which is attached. However, the Board agreed with the advisory opinion that there was no evidence found to indicate that you had completed three years of JROTC as is required...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05089-01
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 copy of which is attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an ofticial naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or In this regard, it is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08558-06
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 NRC letter 1133 Ser N32/ of 20 October 2006, 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...