Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6801 14
Original file (NR6801 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
= nro
1 £ mney!
BOARD FOR CORRFCTION OF NAVAL RPFCORNDS

imi , at SUITE vf

70;j S&S, COURTHNOUSO ROAL ss.

ARLINGTON, VA 22204- 2490

 

HD
Docket No: NR6801-14
12 December 2014

 

Dear

 

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

11 December 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 ana
applicable statutes, ea and policies In addition, the
Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel
Command dated 9 sceoher 2018, = copy Seer an auamenien The Board
also considered your counsel’s letter dated 18 November 201

\fter 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. The Board found the documents in question were properly
placed in your record, as they shed light on your fitness for
assignments and promotions. In reaching this conclusion, the Board
duly noted the supporting statements you provided, the fact that no
isciplinary action was taken against you, and your ass reEion that
the officers who counseled you did not feel the matter in question
should be reflected in your record. In view of the above,
your GEpedeetle on has been denied. The names and votes of the members
of the panel will be furnished upon request.

(D
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 ali officiai recoras.

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

Copy to:

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8179 14

    Original file (NR8179 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. Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report in question, you may submit the RS‘s letter to future selection boards. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR10695 14

    Original file (NR10695 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DErARIMWEMN! Ur the RAY T PAAR PARP FRM PFr Ee TION Ae NAN Se preompr 701 5, COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 100i ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Dear Master ‘

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9784 14

    Original file (NR9784 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 ‘report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 20 August 2014, a Copy of which is attached. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR11670 14

    Original file (NR11670 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Bb three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 February 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 | 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 | NR4896 14

    Original file (NR4896 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 | NR4449 14

    Original file (NR4449 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 | NR9942 14

    Original file (NR9942 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 15 December 2014. 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 | NR4121 14

    Original file (NR4121 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 | NR5450 14

    Original file (NR5450 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. Docket No.NRO5450-14 on of an official Consequently, when applying for a correcti to demonstrate the naval record, the burden is on the applicant existence of probable material error or injustice.