Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5071 14
Original file (NR5071 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
. 7015S, COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2430

 

HD
Docket No: NR5071-14
19 March 2015

 

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 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, together with
ell material submitted in support thereof and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the
advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated
22 Seprember 2014 with attachment and 3G October 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 inj ustice. In
this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory
opinions. 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,

   

RCBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3378 14

    Original file (NR3378 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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). The Board also considered your letter dated 12 September 2014 with enclosures and your e-mail dated 10 December 2014. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3691 14

    Original file (NR3691 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 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 | 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 | NR5109 14

    Original file (NR5109 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Commanc dated 5 and 10 December 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 | NR5949 14

    Original file (NR5949 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 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 probable material error or injustice.

  • 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 | NR5432 14

    Original file (NR5432 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 inthis 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 | NR5549 14

    Original file (NR5549 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 January 2015. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. Docket No.NRO5549-14 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 | NR4576 14

    Original file (NR4576 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    — A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, . In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Administrative Law), dated 24 March 2014, Chief of Naval Personnel, dated 14 October 2014, and Commander, Navy Recruiting Command, dated 26 November 2014, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6440 14

    Original file (NR6440 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 5. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 February 2015. 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.