Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9395 14
Original file (NR9395 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
PR. ACP ARP TAACAIT OF THE MAW Y

wy ROARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

ray S, COURTHCHLSE REAL, SUITE

ARLINGTON, VA 22204- 2490

HD
Docket No: NR93
11 December 201

5-14

a Lo

 

Dear Commander QE

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

11 December 2014. Your allegations of error and injustice were
reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and
procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary

34

e a
ed your letter dated 21 November 2014

material considered by the Board consisted of your application,

together with all material submitted in support thereof and

applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the

Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel

COMMAS, SAGOn 24 October 2014, a copy of whichis attached. The Board
er re

also consid yith enclosure.

s

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 advisory
opinion. The statement at enclosure (1) to your letter of
21 November 2014, which was from an officer other than the re

porting
senior, did not persuade the Board that any of the marks assigned
in the fitness report at issue should have been higher. In view of
the above, your application has been denied. The names and votes
of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

ces or your case
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 of injustice.

Sincerely,

ROBERT J. O’NEILL
Executive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8514 13

    Original file (NR8514 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitte 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. 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 | NR3990 14

    Original file (NR3990 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 19 February 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 | 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 | NR7819 14

    Original file (NR7819 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 11 December 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 | CY2013 | NR9459 13

    Original file (NR9459 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 May 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 | NR10592 14

    Original file (NR10592 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 4 December 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 | 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 | CY2013 | NR6975 13

    Original file (NR6975 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your previous case, docket number 08435-10, was denied on 4 November 2010. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8269 14

    Original file (NR8269 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 November 2014. 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, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9942 14

    Original file (NR9942 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 December 2014. 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.