Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7927 14
Original file (NR7927 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
SPARTMENT GF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
301 §, COURTHOUSE RUAL, SUITE 1605

ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2480

 

HD ;
Docket No: NR7927-14
17 October 2014

 

Dear

 

Sa gat ; § ‘ .
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

16 October 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
Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel
Command dated 12 August 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.

Tt 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.
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.

Sincerely,

LPAI 2

BERT J. O’NEITLL
Executive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | CY2014 | NR4147 14

    Original file (NR4147 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 7 October 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 the burden is om the applicant record, probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3378 14

    Original file (NR3378 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 December 2014 and requested that an additional advisory opinion be obtained from the Navy Personnel Command (NPC). The Board also considered your letter dated 12 September 2014 with enclosures and your e-mail dated 10 December 2014. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...

  • 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 | NR4396 14

    Original file (NR4396 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 28 October 2014. 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 | NR4268 14

    Original file (NR4268 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 congidered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. when applying for a correction of an official naval Consequently, record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3321 14

    Original file (NR3321 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 1 December 2014. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by NPC (memo. NR3321-14 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 | 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 | 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 | CY2013 | NR7074 13

    Original file (NR7074 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 20 November 2014. your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to che proceedings of this Board. 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...