Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9928 14
Original file (NR9928 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
ROARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
wO1 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD. SUITE 1004
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

oSR
Docket No: NR99O28-14

6 November ZUL4

 

This ig 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 6 November 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 all 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 20 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 comment s 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.

tt is regretted that the circumstances of your case are sucn
that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have
the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new
evidence within one yeer 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 | 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 | 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 | NR3240 14

    Original file (NR3240 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 November 20:4. 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 | NR2716 14

    Original file (NR2716 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. 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 | 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 | NR4711 14

    Original file (NR4711 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. You are the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new evidence within New evidence is prior to making is important to attaches to all one year from the date of the Board’s decision. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9953 14

    Original file (NR9953 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all materia support thereof, your naval record and applicable s regulations and policies. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board h om) 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 | NR9925 14

    Original file (NR9925 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    JSR Docket No: NR9925-14 fu November

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9935 14

    Original file (NR9935 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, ‘es, 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 reful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9929 14

    Original file (NR9929 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 November 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.