Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3378 14
Original file (NR3378 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

HD
Docket No: NR3378-14
19 March 2015

 

 

Dear Ane mee

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.

 

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

18 December 2014 and requested that an additional advisory opinion
be obtained from the Navy Personnel Command (NPC). After receipt
of the additional advisory opinion, a different panel considered your
application on 19 March 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, togesner with all material submitted in support
chereof and applicable sta tures, regulations and policies. In
addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by
the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) dated 17 July and 27 October 2014
and the NPC e-mail dated 6 February 2015, copies of which are
attached. The Board also considered your letter dated 12 September

2014 with enclosures and your e-mail dated 10 December 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. In
this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory
opinions and the NPC e-mail dated 6 February 2015. 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 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 J. O'NEILL
Executive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4263 14

    Original file (NR4263 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2014 | NR3990 14

    Original file (NR3990 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 19 February 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 | CY2014 | NR2990 14

    Original file (NR2990 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 February 2015. 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 | CY2015 | NR059 15

    Original file (NR059 15.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, ‘sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 2015. Additionally, the Board considered your response to the Advisory Opinion dated 24 February 2015. : 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4936 14

    Original file (NR4936 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. NR4936-14 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 | NR5561 14

    Original file (NR5561 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 January 2015. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decisioh in your case. NR5561-14 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 | NR8620 14

    Original file (NR8620 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 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 | NR13160 14

    Original file (NR13160 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Sincerely, ROBERT J. O'NEILL Executive Director DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S, COURTHOUSE RD SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON VA 22204-2490 BAN Docket No.NROQ6157-14 19 Taswitoass OAT aa A eve This ig in reference to your application for correction to your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 United States Code, section 1552. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. Consequently, when...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9684 14

    Original file (NR9684 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 23 April 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 this regard, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion.

  • 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...