Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6136 14
Original file (NR6136 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
7015. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA ‘22204-2490 :

 

TAL

Docket No: 6136-14/
10139-06

19 December 2014

Dear a7

This is in reference to your recent reconsideration request. You
previously petitioned the Board and were advised in our letter of
21 June 2007, that your application had been denied.

Your current request has been carefully examined by a three-
member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session on 17 December 2014. Documentary
material considered by the Board consisted of your letters, any
material submitted in support of your application, and your prior
case file. .

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
recoré, the Board determined your letter, even though not
previously considered by the Board, was insufficient to establish
the existence of material error or injustice. The Board
determined your letter was not enough to outweigh the significant
misconduct you committed while on active duty. Accordingly, your
application has been denied. The names and votes of the members
of the panel will be furnished upon request.

The Board also noted that you should contact Headquarters, United
States Marine Corps, Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower and
Reserve Affairs (M&RA) Department, Code MMER, 32 Russell Road,
Quantico, Virginia 22134-5103 to request that administrative
corrections be made to your Certificate of Release or Discharge
from Active Duty (DD Form 214) such as a name change and to
request copies.

It is regrettable 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 and
material 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 your case. In this
regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of
regularity attaches to all official record, the burden is on the
applicant to demonstrate the existence of material error or

injustice.
Sincerely,
: . ROBERT J. O/ NEILL
3 Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3775 14

    Original file (NR3775 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your current request has been carefully examined by a three- member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session on 17 December 2014. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board determined your letter explaining the events concerning your civil arrest even though not previously considered by the Board, was insufficient to establish the existence of material error or injustice. New evidence is evidence not previously...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7556 14

    Original file (NR7556 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your current request has been carefully examined by a three- member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session on 9 December 2014. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application and any material submitted in support of your application. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR10592 14

    Original file (NR10592 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 4 December 2014. 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 | NR8231 14

    Original file (NR8231 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your current request has been carefully examined by a three- member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session on 21 January 2015. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5680 14

    Original file (NR5680 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your current request has been carefully examined by a three- member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, any material submitted in support of your application, and prior case file. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board determined the medical notes you submitted, © even though not previously considered by the Board,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3051 14

    Original file (NR3051 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 18 November 2014. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4632 14

    Original file (NR4632 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your current request has been carefully examined by a three- member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, .sitting in executive session. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board determined your assertion, that you had trouble with your younger brother, even though not previously considered by the Board, was insufficient to establish the existence of material error or injustice. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3162 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR3162 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your current request has been carefully examined by a three- member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, any material submitted in support of your application, and prior case file. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board determined the psychological evaluation notes you submitted, even though not previously considered by the Board,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5506 14

    Original file (NR5506 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 4 December 2014. In addition, the Board considered the reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 28 April and 23 September 2014, copies of which are attached, and your letter dated 8 May 2014. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...

  • 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...