wee ernie
I
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV?
AIR eee rot poenmrye
PRAM EASES Qo ar ae ‘ r
701 S, COURTHOUSE RD SUITE 100%
ARLINGTON VA 22204-2490
BAN
Docket No:NRO8308-14
7A Caontamhar 2PN14
oe Sp See
This is in reply to your request for reconsideration on 2 July
2014. A review of sur files reveals that in April 2013, you
petitioned this Board seeking to adjust your date of service in
the Marine Corps Reserve to reflect that you were on active duty
from 20 November 1996 to 23 May 1997.
On 13 August 2013, your case was presented to the Board and it
was partially appreved, see enclosure (1). However, you allege
that you did not receive a copy of the partially favorable
advisory opinion (2/0), since you did not agree with the
approval dates. Trerefore, in July 2014, you requested not only
a copy of the A/O, but a reconsideration of your case based on
new information anc. your response to the A/O.
As explained in the Board’s previous partial approval letter, a
case may only be reconsidered upon submission of new and
material evidence. New evidence is defined as evidence not
previously considezed by the Board and not reasonably available
to you at the time of your previous application. Evidence is
considered to be material if it is likely to have a substantial
effect on the outcome of the Board's decision. On 14 July 2014,
your reconsideration request was approved.
Therefore, on 10 S2ptember 2014, a three-member panel of the
Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considerei your reconsideration request. 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, your naval record and
applicable statutes, regulations and policies, in addition, the
Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters
Marine Corps (HOMC) memo 1800 MMSR-5 of 30 July 2013, a copy of
Docket No.NRUS3U8-14
which was provided tp you on + August 2014, be
provided to you now,| see enclosure (2). Additionally, the Board
also considered your response to the A/O dated 26 August 2014.
and 15 1ng
peptic? S
Therefore, after car2ful and conscientious consideration of the
entire record, the Board found that the evidence you submitted
af£ininnt to agtablish the existence of probable material
Was 21Surraee esse Ere [Se eee
error or injustice. | In making this determination, the Board
still concurred with the comments contained in the original
advisory opinion. , The names and votes of the members of the
panel will be furnished upon request.
It is regretted hat the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable acticn cannot be taken. You are entitled to have
the Board reconside? its decision upon submission of new
evidence within one| year from the date of the Board's decision.
New evidence is evitlence not previously considered by the Board
prior to making its decision in this case. In this regard, it
is important to kee) in mind that a presumption of regularity
attaches to all off|.cial records.
Sincerely
ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Feecutive Director
Enclosures
No
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5667 14
on 4 September 2014, you have requested a reconsideration of your case. 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 | NR9513 13
* However, as explained in the Board’s previous letter, a case may only be reconsidered upon submission of new and material evidence. Evidence is considered to be material if |.t is likely to have a substantial effect on the outcome of the Board's decision. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) meme 1070 JB Gf 72 Aug 2014, & COPY of which is being provided to you, see enclosure (25) « 1 tn 1983, you had been selected to...
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 | NR10595 14
You requested modifying the fitness report for 16 July 2012 to 31 May 2013 by making section K (reviewing officer's marks and comments) “not observed.” You further requested removing your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year 2015 Major Selection Board. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has irected the requestea modification of the fitness report in R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3976 14
However, in light your highly decorated award (Silver Star), your case was presented to the Board out of respect for your exceptional service to our country. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 2014, Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Accordingly, your application...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6075 14
Evidence is considered to be material if it is likely to have a substantial effect on the outcome of the Board’s decision, On 16 April 2014, our office received your reconsideration request dated 9 April 2014, requesting a reconsideration of your case based on new and material information you provided (a response to the original advisory opinion). Therefore, a three- member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3047 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 November 2014. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. In this regard, an RE-3C reentry code is authorized when a Marine is ‘discharged at the expiration of their term of active obligated service and is not...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8281 13
The Board, consisting of Mr. Zsalman, Mr, Exnicios, and Mr. Ruskin, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 21 July 2014 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. See enclosure (6). See enclosure (4).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3463 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 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 | NR8890 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 9 April 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. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.