Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9159 14
Original file (NR9159 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
JSR
Docket No: NR9159-14

19 March 2015

 

or correction of your

cation f
f the

to your appli
sions of title 10 ©

is in reference
rsuant to the provi

section 1552.

This
naval record pu

United States Code,
f

n on 19 March 2015.
reviewed in acco
d@ procedures appl
Board. Documentary material considered by t

of your application, together with all ma

support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes,

yeguiations ang policies. In addition, the Board considered the

reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) performance

Evaluation Review Board (PERB} , Gated 1 August 2014 and 23

January 2015, an in] from HQMC Gated 7 July
attached. The Board

and 18 December
2014 with

also considered your
y 2015 with enclosu

enclosures, 9 Januar
Information act reply dated 6 October 20
the command investigation dated 1 August

with enclosures -

applicatio
injustice were
regulations 4m

2014, copies °

4 with redacted copy of
2013) and 6 March 2015

sideration of the entire
itted was
bable material

ious con
he ‘evidence subm
tablish the existence of pro
In this connection, the Board substantially
omments contained in the reports of the PERB

The Boar i ize there was no

record,
insufficient to ©
error or injustice.

concurred with the ¢
and the advisory opinions .

evidence that you were pers
incidents. In view of the above,
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 ig 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,
VM ar .
Executive Director

‘Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6102 14

    Original file (NR6102 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 26 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2015 | NR65 15

    Original file (NR65 15.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 January 2015. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 30 December 2014, a copy of which is attached. 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 | NR9934 14

    Original file (NR9934 14.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. 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 In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5292 14

    Original file (NR5292 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 14 August 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. 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 | NR4737 14

    Original file (NR4737 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ail material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. a copy of which is 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,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3801 14

    Original file (NR3801 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 24 July 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. 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 | CY2015 | NR2108 15

    Original file (NR2108 15.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 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 probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR12003 14

    Original file (NR12003 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board also considered a COPY of your fitness report for 15 January to 2 October 2010, whose removal was directed by the HOMC Performance Evaluation Review Board, and the HOMC e-mail dated 21 November 2014 (the basis for the PERB action), a COPY of which is also 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8168 14

    Original file (NR8168 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    BA three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 September 2014. your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable te the proceedings of this y material considered by the Board consisted Board. after careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1693 14

    Original file (NR1693 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 10 April 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...