Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2576 14
Original file (NR2576 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S, COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 100i
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

JSR
Decket No: NR2576-14
ls Vctober 2014

 

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.

BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 15 October 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 opinions from Headquarters Marine Corps dated 23 June
and 25 July 2014, copies of which are 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 opinions.
The Board duly noted, but was not persuaded by, the statement of
1 August 2013 from your officer-in-charge at the time you
received the contested counseling entry, to the effect he did
not believe you demonstrated poor judgment and recommended
removing the entry from your record. 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 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 O’ NEILL
Fxecutive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4293 14

    Original file (NR4293 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | NR11369 14

    Original file (NR11369 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | NR7884 14

    Original file (NR7884 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on § January 2015. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board dated 18 June 2014, the e-mail from HOMC dated 7 July 2014, and the advisory opinions from HOMC dated 2 September and 6 October 2014, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4746 14

    Original file (NR4746 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 14 August 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, In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board dated 2 April 2014, the e-mail from HQMC dated...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5123 14

    Original file (NR5123 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 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 | NR0348 14

    Original file (NR0348 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | NR0438 14

    Original file (NR0438 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 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 | NR8611 13

    Original file (NR8611 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    — Tt is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 2 June 2011 to 28 February 2012 by filing a Memorandum for the Record showing that section A, item 6.a (“Commendatory Material”) is marked, and including in section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”) “Directed Comments: Item 6A: MRO [Marine reported on] was awarded a Meritorious Mast and two Letters of Appreciation during this reporting period.” A...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8902 14

    Original file (NR8902 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 8 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, regulations and policies, In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) Performance Fvaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 23 September...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR12003 14

    Original file (NR12003 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board also considered a COPY of your fitness report for 15 January to 2 October 2010, whose removal was directed by the HOMC Performance Evaluation Review Board, and the HOMC e-mail dated 21 November 2014 (the basis for the PERB action), a COPY of which is also 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...