Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9255 14
Original file (NR9255 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

JET
Docket No. NR9255-14
4 May 15

 

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

27 April 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 OCNO memo 7220 Ser
N130D/14U1467 of 30 January 2015, 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
making this determination, the Board 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
Docket No. NR9255-14

record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of
probable material error or injustice.

ROBERT J. O'NEILL

r Executive Director

Enclosure: OCNO memo 7220 Ser N130D/14U1467 of 30 Jan 15

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7118 14

    Original file (NR7118 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 6 April 2015. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by OCNO memo 7220 Ser N130D/14U1467 of 4 November 2014, a copy of which is attached. However, the Board found that your orders to VP-45 had a Projected Rotation Date (PRD) of November 2015.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 05133 12

    Original file (05133 12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 October 2013. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by OCNO Memo 7220 Ser N130D/13U0849 dated 30 September 2013, 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 | CY2013 | NR1916-13

    Original file (NR1916-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, gitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 September 2013. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by OCNO Memo 7220 Ser N130D/13U0408 dated 9 May 2013, a copy of which igs 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 | NR7189 14

    Original file (NR7189 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | NR7386 14

    Original file (NR7386 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 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3218 14

    Original file (NR3218 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application cn 9 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 | NR7121 14

    Original file (NR7121 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In your own words you state “my recruiter and classifier at MEPS both failed to make me aware of the bonus I was entitled to as per my rate (AIRC), and time of entry.” Enlistment bonuses are not a Docket No. In your case it was not offered and you voluntarily signed up without the incentive of an enlistment bonus. 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 | NR4201 14

    Original file (NR4201 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    “pocumentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, requiations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by OCNO memo 7220 Ser Ni30C/14U1201 dated 11 September 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7727 13

    Original file (NR7727 13.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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by OCNO memo 7220 Ser N130C/14U1330 dated 10 October 2014, a copy of which is attached. NR7727-13 consequentiy, wher appiyang [or @ correction Of am iliviai ives record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7727 13

    Original file (NR7727 13.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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by OCNO memo 7220 Ser N130C/14U1330 dated 10 October 2014, a copy of which is attached. NR7727-13 consequentiy, wher appiyang [or @ correction Of am iliviai ives record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...