Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3990 14
Original file (NR3990 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
7O1S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1061
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

JSR
Docket No: NR3990-14
19 February 2015

 

Dear Staff sergeant finn

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
application on 19 February 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
e-mail from Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) dated 2 May 2014
and the advisory opinions from HOMC dated 5 June, 21 July, 21
November and 18 December 2014, copies of which are attached.

The Board also considered your letter dated 9 October 2014 with
attachments and a copy of your fitness report for 1 November
2008 to 30 April 2009, provided by HOMC, whose removal was
directed: by the HQMC Performance Evaluation Review Board.

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
dated 21 July, 21 November and 18 December 2014. 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 | NR6803 14

    Original file (NR6803 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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by HQMC memo 1400/3 MMPR-2 dated 13 February 2015 and HQMC memo 1400/3 MMPR-2 dated 18 November 2014, copies of which are attached. NR6803-14 Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8890 14

    Original file (NR8890 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 9 April 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. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

  • 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 | NR4499 14

    Original file (NR4499 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 ord and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case. NR4499-14 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 | CY2013 | NR8532 13

    Original file (NR8532 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 24 July 2014. in addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 18 October 2013, the e- Mail from HQMC dated 19 November 2013, and the advisory opinions from HOMC dated 25 March 2014 with enclosure and 8 May 2014, copies of which are attached, - After careful and conscientious...

  • 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5495 14

    Original file (NR5495 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. 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. NRS495-14 Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9425 14

    Original file (NR9425 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 8 August 2014, and the advisory opinion from HQMC dated 19 May 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3705 14

    Original file (NR3705 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted cf your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. ble material error or injustice. year from the date of the Board's decision.

  • 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.