Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9357 14
Original file (NR9357 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
JSR
Docket No: NR9357-14
15 October 2014

 

Dear Sergeant

 

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

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your —
application on 15 October 2014. 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 ail material submitted in
support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies. in addition, the Board considered the
report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation
Review Board (PERB), dated 5 August 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 to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice. In this connection, the Board substantially —
concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB.
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 the existence of probable material
error or injustice.

Sincerely,

ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR11685 14

    Original file (NR11685 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 18 December 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. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8611 13

    Original file (NR8611 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    — Tt is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 2 June 2011 to 28 February 2012 by filing a Memorandum for the Record showing that section A, item 6.a (“Commendatory Material”) is marked, and including in section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”) “Directed Comments: Item 6A: MRO [Marine reported on] was awarded a Meritorious Mast and two Letters of Appreciation during this reporting period.” A...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9352 14

    Original file (NR9352 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 5 August 2014, a copy of which is 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 demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR11369 14

    Original file (NR11369 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The page 11 entry was not considered, as the attached e-mail dated 28 October 2014 from Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) shows that neither the entry nor your rebuttal appears in your Official Military Personnel File. A three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 November 2014. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its gecision in this case.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9149 14

    Original file (NR9149 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Tt is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the contested fitness report for 1 July 2010 to-16 May 2011. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 October 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, In...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9154 14

    Original file (NR9154 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 15 October 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 | NR9150 14

    Original file (NR9150 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It ig noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), "MRO [Marine reported on] best performs in an environment working for staif noncommissioned officers and senior enlisted Marines who can supervise her daily tasks so as to ensure details are adhered to and timeliness is attained.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9792 14

    Original file (NR9792 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    in addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board {(PERB), dated 20 August 2014, a copy of which is attached, and your letter dated 15 September 2014. a conscientious consideration of the entire After careful an vidence submitted was record, the Board found that the e insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9423 14

    Original file (NR9423 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 23 October 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 | NR9785 14

    Original file (NR9785 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 30 October 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.