Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3348 14
Original file (NR3348 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARITMEN|! OF THE WN AVY
ROARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Ai €, COURTHOUSE ROAD SUITE 1001

ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

   

HD
Docket No: NR3348-14
20 November 2014

oe aa

 

This is in reference to your applic

ation for correction of your naval

f title 10 of the United States

record pursuant to the provisions ©

Code, section 1552.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,

sitting in executive session, considered your application on
20 November 2014. your allegations of error and injustice were

reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and
revcedures applicable to the proceedings oF 8» Board. Documentary
material considered by the Board consisted of your 4 plicati

together with all material submitted in support thereof and
applicable statutes, regulations n
Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by
Command dated 18 August 2014, 4 copy of which is attached.

and policies. In addition,
the Navy Personnel

ientious consideration of the entire record,
e evidence submitted was insufficient to

of probable material error of injustice. In
d substantially concurred with the advisory
n has been denied. The names
11 be furnished upon request.

after careful and consc
the Board found that th
establish the existence
this connection, the Boar
opinion. accordingly, your applicatio
and votes of the members of the panel wi

ances of your case are such that
ed to have the Board
evidence within one

It is regretted that the circumst

favorable action cannot be taken.
decision upon submission of new
arda's decision. New evidence is evidence
the Board prior to making its decision
ep in mind that

you are entitl

reconsider its
year from the date of the Bo
not previously considered by
in this case. In this regard,

y attaches

a presumption of regularity to all official records.
rrection of an official naval

Consequently, when applying for a co
t to demonstrate the existence

record, the burden is on the applican
of probable material error or injustice.

y= f 7
4 VUGnL

ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Fxecutive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6934 14

    Original file (NR6934 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    TET Rem OTR NT , lu cin i DIP Ar PIVILIN ! A e Board for Correction of Naval Records, considered your application on sitti 19 November 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9159 14

    Original file (NR9159 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board and 18 December 2014 with also considered your y 2015 with enclosu enclosures, 9 Januar Information act reply dated 6 October 20 the command investigation dated 1 August with enclosures - applicatio injustice were regulations 4m 2014, copies ° 4 with redacted copy of 2013) and 6 March 2015 sideration of the entire itted was bable material ious con he ‘evidence subm tablish the existence of pro In this connection, the Board substantially omments contained in the reports of the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9934 14

    Original file (NR9934 14.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. 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 In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07599-01

    Original file (07599-01.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 March 2002. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material subniitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The following is provided in response to reference (a): b. J s case has been reviewed.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02408-02

    Original file (02408-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 April 2002. The Board thus concluded that there is no error or injustice in your reenlistment code. 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 | NR7631 13

    Original file (NR7631 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 November 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. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2120 14

    Original file (NR2120 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board also considered your letters dated 8 August and 13 November 2014 each with enclosures. 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 | CY2014 | NR8269 14

    Original file (NR8269 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 November 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00784-02

    Original file (00784-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 March 2002. 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 | NR3204 14

    Original file (NR3204 14.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. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. NR3204-14 n official naval Consequently, when applying for a correction of a istence of record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the ex probable material error or injustice.