Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9684 14
Original file (NR9684 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

 

HD
Docket No. NR9684-14
24 April 2015

 

 

Dear Lieutenant

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
navai recora pursuant to tne provisions of Title 10, 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 23 April 2015. The names and votes of the members
of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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 the Commanding
Officer, Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility, Virginia
Capes dated 20 August 2014 and the Navy Personnel Command dated
14 October 2014, copies of which are 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 regard, the Board substantially
concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion.
While the Board did not condone the command’s lateness in mailing
your fitness report for 1 February 2013 to 31 July 2014, a report
that would have enhanced your competitiveness for promotion, the
Board particularly noted that you received the report on

2 March 2014, so you had an opportunity to submit a copy to the
President of the Fiscal Year 15 Active Line Lieutenant Commander
Selection Board before the promotion board convened on

7 April 2015. In view of the above, your application has been
denied.

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 and material
evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board.
In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a
presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
orrection of an official naval
ant to demonstrate the

SIRLAY
Ue: g. O'NEILL
Executive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8499 13

    Original file (NR8499 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested removing the fitness report for 14 February to 10 June 2011 and your two rebuttals, each dated 8 June 2011, to the service record page 11 ("Administrative Remarks (1070)") entries dated 25 May and 1 June 2011, respectively. Rh three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 April 2015. Since the Board found insufficient grounds to remove either of your failures of selection for promotion, it had...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4712 14

    Original file (NR4712 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 5 June 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 | NR9152 14

    Original file (NR9152 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested completely removing the fitness report for 5 April to 30 November 2007, and you impliedly requested removing your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 20615 Major Selection Board. In this regard, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion in finding your selection by the FY 2015 promotion board would have been definitely unlikely, even if your record had reflected the modifications CMC has directed to the fitness report at issue. Consequently, when:...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6537 14

    Original file (NR6537 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 13 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 | NR2944 14

    Original file (NR2944 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative reguiations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board, Documentary material considered by the Board consiste@ of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR11256 14

    Original file (NR11256 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    NR11256-14 22 January 2015 This is in reference to your counsel’s letter on your behalf dated 25 September 2014 with enclosures, seeking reconsideration of your previous application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552, In your previous case, docket number 9039-13, you requested reinstatement to your class and promotion to lieutenant colonel and colonel. This request was denied on 14 August 2014. , A three-member...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8095 14

    Original file (NR8095 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 April 2015. New evidence igs 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 | NR0819 14

    Original file (NR0819 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 7015. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnishec by the Navy Personnel Command dated 16 April 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 | CY2013 | NR475-13

    Original file (NR475-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the fitness report in question as you requested. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 April 2013. 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 warranting removal of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8180 14

    Original file (NR8180 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Rh three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24. 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 material error or...