DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 §. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
DIC
Docket No. NR8602-14
1 Apr 1
wi 2
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval
record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552;
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on
30 March 2015. 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 HQMC memo
dated 27 January 2015, a copy of which was provided to
February 2015, and is being provided to you now.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the ent-re record,
the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient tc
establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. In
this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments
contained in 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.
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval
record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate tne existence of
Docket No. NR&602-14
probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,
ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive virector
Enclosure: HOMC memo 5420 MMSR-2 dtd 27 Jan 15
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR10494 14
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. NR10494-14 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 | NR10656 14
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 HQMC memo 1400/3 MMPR-2 dated 27 February 2015, a copy of which is attached. NR10656-14 Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9255 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 April 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 Docket No.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8899 14
Your application claims “I was not counseled on the effects of my ability to transfer 9/11 education benefits prior to reenlistment. The Board concurs with the advisory opinion that changing your reenlistment contract from 3 years to 4 years will not satisfy the *service obligation for transferring your Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits since you attempted the transfer in July 2014 vice May 2014. The Board has determined and agrees with the advisory opinion, that if you wish to be eligible to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6382 14
COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 DIC Docket No. BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 March 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7189 14
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 OCNO memo 7220 Ser N130C2/15U0151 dated 5 February 2015, a copy of which was provided to you on 7 February 2015, and is being provided to you now. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6705 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of Docket No.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7569 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 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 Docket No.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8575 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 March 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. The Board took into consideration your response to the Advisory Opinion dated 12 March 2015.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7386 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 April 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 Docket No.