Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2495 14
Original file (NR2495 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 5S. COURTHOUSE ROAD. SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

HD
Docket No: NR2495-14
5 June 2014

 

Dear Petty Officer ay

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.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your appiication on

5 June 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 April 2014 with enclosure, 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 advisory
opinion, noting that block 51 (“Signature of Individual Evaluated" )
of the contested report, in which your mark in biock 45 ("Promotion
Recommendation - Individual”) was changed from “Must Promote”
(second best of five possible marks) to “Promotable” (third best),
shows “CERTIFIED COPY PROVIDED.” 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,

TR ek DS aa
ROBERT D. 4ASALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR475-13

    Original file (NR475-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the fitness report in question as you requested. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 April 2013. 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 warranting removal of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0819 14

    Original file (NR0819 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 7015. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnishec by the Navy Personnel Command dated 16 April 2014, 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 injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4646-13

    Original file (NR4646-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested that the enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 March 2012 to 15 March 2013 be modified by raising the mark in block 45 (*Promotion Recommendation - Individual”) from “Promotable” (third best of five possible marks} to “the appropriate and proportional rating deserving of the work put forth.” 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1986 14

    Original file (NR1986 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 7O1 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD. 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. 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, kD Ko ROBERT D. ZSALMAN Acting Executive Director Enclosure

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04885-08

    Original file (04885-08.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 2008. 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 the Navy Personnel Command dated 17 June 2008, a copy of which is attached.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00587-09

    Original file (00587-09.PDF) Auto-classification: Denied

    ™ A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 April 2009. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (PERS-~- 311) dated 26 February 2009, 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 injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0978 14

    Original file (NR0978 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 26 June 2014. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with 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 | CY2014 | NR8180 14

    Original file (NR8180 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Rh three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24. 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 error or...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8180 14

    Original file (NR8180 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Rh three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24. 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 error or...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04642-08

    Original file (04642-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 the Navy Personnel Command dated 19 June 2008, 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...