Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8208 14
Original file (NR8208 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
7015, COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

HD
Docket No: NR&208-14
9 April 2015

 

 

This is in reference to your application dated 3 July 2014 for
correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title
10 of the United States Code, section 1552.

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. In your current case, you also

requested removal of the letter-supplement dated 5 June 2014 to che
1on Memo signed by the

ec documentation; and

contested fitness report; removal of the Ac
Secretary of the Navy on 17 May 2012 with rel

 

reinstatement £O active auty in une

tye ocrade for which vou were seLec tes

Va me =, ae = - essa eae PXimecum: oi me a

TYETN LLEurenent UOMMENISD slant Coat

To eae Wow = 7 So eine Dae we = a aan a i Ten ees & Te ay
h three-member wane. oF Tne Soerc ror Lorrecllon of Weve. Recoras,

Sitting in executive session, considered your application
@ April 2015. Your allegations of error and inju

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, the Board's file on your

previous case, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies..

In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished
by the Navy Personnel Command dated 22 December 2014 and 14 January
2015 with enclosure, copies of which are attached, and your letter
dated 20 February 2015 with enclosures.

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 acvisory
opinions. The letter-supplement did not persuade the Board that the
fitness report at issue was not marked accurately and fairly. In
this regard, the Board particularly noted that the reporting senior
did not state the adverse information in block 41 (“Comments on
Performance”) was untrue. 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 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.
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 | NR6179 14

    Original file (NR6179 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2013 | NR9184 13

    Original file (NR9184 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 58. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by modifying the fitness report for 1 July 2012 to 31 March 2013 (copy at Tab A), in accordance with the reviewing officer (RO)’s letter of 22 May 2013 (at enclosure (1)), by raising the mark in section K.3...

  • 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 | NR2990 14

    Original file (NR2990 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 12 February 2015. 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 probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR12997 14

    Original file (NR12997 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 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 | NR11687 14

    Original file (NR11687 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 22 January 2015. 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 probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07125-00

    Original file (07125-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The member alleges an administrative error was made on his fitness report in question concerning his promotion recommendation. c. The member and the reporting senior refer to changes to the fitness report in question as administrative changes. is returned concurr 5420 Pers 85 27 Mar 01 ings of NR The fitness report dated 14 Jul 98 2. have affected the FY-00 Active Duty Captain Line Promotion Selection Board, as it The FY-01 board would have been the first convened 14 Jan 99. to review the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8180 14

    Original file (NR8180 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Rh three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24. 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 probable material error or...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8180 14

    Original file (NR8180 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Rh three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24. 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 probable material error or...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2944 14

    Original file (NR2944 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative reguiations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board, Documentary material considered by the Board consiste@ 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...