Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6537 14
Original file (NR6537 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
7015. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-24390

 

JSR
Docket No: NR6537-14

13 August 2014

 

Dear &

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
_haval 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 13 August 2014. 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
advisory opinion from Headquarters Marine Corps {(HOMC) dated 25
July 2014 and the HOMC e-mail dated 12 August 2014, copies of
which are attached, your letter dated i2 August 2014 and the e-
mail on your behalf dated 13 August 2014 from Colonel P. R---,
United States Marine Corps (Retired), 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 did find that
your certificate of completion of Command and Staff College was
hot in your record considered by the Fiscal Year 2015 Lieutenant
Colonel Selection Board. However, the Board was unable to find
that the documents in question were in your record when you
checked it for completeness before the promotion board convened.
In this regard, the Board particularly noted that the e-mail
from Colonel R--- said he was “not sure of the specific details
regarding ‘what was missing/inaccurate.’” In view of the above,
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 and
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by
the Board. 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 D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8499 13

    Original file (NR8499 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested removing the fitness report for 14 February to 10 June 2011 and your two rebuttals, each dated 8 June 2011, to the service record page 11 ("Administrative Remarks (1070)") entries dated 25 May and 1 June 2011, respectively. Rh three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 April 2015. Since the Board found insufficient grounds to remove either of your failures of selection for promotion, it had...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4717 13

    Original file (NR4717 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 14 August 2014. in addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) Performance Evaluation Review Boarg (PERB) dated 17 May 2013, the e-mail from HOMC dated 18 July 2013, and the advisory opinions furnished by HOMC dated 18 February 2014 with attachment (MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, Subject: Promotion Recommendation...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09583-09

    Original file (09583-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested modifying the fitness report for 8 August 2005 to 31 May 2006 by removing the entire section K (reviewing officer’s (RO’s) marks and comments). 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...

  • 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 | CY2010 | 08487-10

    Original file (08487-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted im support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 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. Since the Board found insufficient basis to remove your failure of selection by the FY 2011...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4746 14

    Original file (NR4746 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 August 2014. 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 addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board dated 2 April 2014, the e-mail from HQMC dated...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1714 14

    Original file (NR1714 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 2 October 2014. In addition, the Board considered the reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 4 February 2014 and 18 July 2014 as amended by the HOMC e-mail dated 5 August 2014, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6102 14

    Original file (NR6102 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7884 14

    Original file (NR7884 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on § January 2015. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board dated 18 June 2014, the e-mail from HOMC dated 7 July 2014, and the advisory opinions from HOMC dated 2 September and 6 October 2014, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR876 14

    Original file (NR876 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 10 September 2014. Because of a civil court case Secretary of the Navy was directed to reconsider his decision made in the Records (BCNR) to consider your case regarding your forced retirement per the FY09 Colonel SRB. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...