Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7819 14
Original file (NR7819 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

7Oi S. CGOURTHGUSE RGAD, SUITE 106%

ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

HD
Decket No: NR7819-14
15 January 2015

 

 

Dear Petty officer a

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 and
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the
Boarg considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel
Command dated 14 November 2014, a copy of which is attached. The
Board also considered your undated letter (faxed 22 December 2014)
with attachments.

Rftter 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.
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,

ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive -Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7927 14

    Original file (NR7927 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 16 October 2014. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. Consequentiy, 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 | NR4576 14

    Original file (NR4576 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    — A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, . In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Administrative Law), dated 24 March 2014, Chief of Naval Personnel, dated 14 October 2014, and Commander, Navy Recruiting Command, dated 26 November 2014, 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8682 13

    Original file (NR8682 13.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. 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 naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3691 14

    Original file (NR3691 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 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 | NR3782 14

    Original file (NR3782 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 11 September 2014. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support therecf 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 material error or...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1670 14

    Original file (NR1670 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 29 October 2014. You are antitled 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. 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 | CY2013 | NR6601 13

    Original file (NR6601 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material supmitted in support thereof and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Tn addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 25 February and 11 July 2014, 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7128 13

    Original file (NR7128 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 28 August 2014. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together wath all material submitted in support thereof 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 material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5071 14

    Original file (NR5071 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 19 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 | 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.