DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY _
ue a ee
ae ek mI pater PAAM SITE toot
7G Bo. Vw pare EE -
| ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
wet Pk
TAL
Docket No: 7271-14/
11980-10
14 January 2015
This is in reference to your recent reconsideration request. You
previously petitioned the Board and were advised in our letter of
24 January 2011 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 14 January 2015. Documentary
material considered by the Board consisted of your letter, any
material submitted in support of your application, and your prior
case file.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board determined your letter, even though net
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. Accordingiy, your
application has been denied. The names anc votes of the members
of the panel will be furnished upon request.
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 cf 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
reguiarity attaches to ail official record, the burden is on the
applicant to demonstrate the existence of material error or
injustice.
Sincerely,
ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Dixector
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8524 14_Redacted
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. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application and any material submitted in support of your application. after careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board determined that the letter you submitted, even though not previously considered by the Board, was...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR12687 14
‘A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on-6 January 2015. 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 your case, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6179 14
This request was denied on 30 September 2013. #, three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 22 January 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3268 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on @ January 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 | NR11683 14
a oe — me AP wern sent DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY ee OR BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS AN Se. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 January 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8208 14
You again requested removal of the fitness report for 3 June to 2 September 2011. In your previous case, docket number 1076-12, this ~equest was denied on 26 April 2012. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board's file on your previous case, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies..
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR12997 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 January 2015. 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. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8524 14
You previously petitioned the Board and were advised in our letter of 17 November 2011, that your application had been denied. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application and any material submitted in support of your application. after careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board determined that the jetter you submitted, even though not previously considered by the Board, was insufficient to establish the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5160 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 January 2015. After carefui 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. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5128 14
A’ three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 January 2015. 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...