Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6264 14
Original file (NR6264 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

HD
Docket No: NR6264-14
26 March 2025

 

Dear Petty Office

 

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

26 March 2015. Your allegations of error and inj ustice 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 and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies. In aadition, the Board considered the
advisory opinion furnished by the Ffice of the Chief of Naval
Operations dated 23 December 2014, a copy of which is 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 injustice. In
this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory
opinion. 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,

Fili

ROBERT J. O’ NEILL
Executive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7816 14

    Original file (NR7816 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by NPC memo 1430 Ser 8112/0033 dated 26 January 2015, a copy of which is attached. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case. NR7816-14 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 | CY2008 | 08297-08

    Original file (08297-08.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 2009. 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 | NR5563 14

    Original file (NR5563 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 26 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 | CY2008 | 08144-08

    Original file (08144-08.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 2009. 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 | NR10079 14

    Original file (NR10079 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested that the evaluation and counseling record for 26 September 2011 to 27 January 2012 be modified by removing, from block 41 ("Comments on Performance”), “Member received counseling for unduly familiar relationship with subordinate and appears to have corrected behavior accordingly.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considerec your application on 16 March 2015. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10679-07

    Original file (10679-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps, a copy of which is attached.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. You requested an advisory opinion (hereinafter “Applicant”) application, docket #10679-07, which requested invalidation of a non-judicial punishment (NJP) and restoration of his...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07813-08

    Original file (07813-08.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 2009. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 3 and 22 September 2008, 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 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 | CY2011 | 02371-11

    Original file (02371-11.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 September 2011. 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 | CY2008 | 07876-08

    Original file (07876-08.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 2009. 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...