Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9948 14
Original file (NR9948 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
JSR
Docket No: NR9S48-14

Cf Natrambna DATA
a A ee Ne te ew a

 

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 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 4 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 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.
Your citation for the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal
for March to October 2008 did not persuade the Board that you
deserved a more favorable appraisal from the reviewing officer.
Since the Board found no defect in your performance record, it
had no basis to remove your failure of selection by the Fiscal
Year 2015 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. 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.
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 reguiarity
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’NETLL
Executive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9419 14

    Original file (NR9419 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 | NR10596 14

    Original file (NR10596 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “MRO [Marine reported on] being assigned to the BCP [Body Composition Program] “ 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9421 14

    Original file (NR9421 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 t support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board {(PERB), dated 8 August...

  • 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 | NR7876 14

    Original file (NR7876 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 21 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 | 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 | NR9778 14

    Original file (NR9778 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. 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 | NR1148 14

    Original file (NR1148 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 23 January and i8 July 2014, copies of which are attached, and your letter dated 6 February 2014 with enclosures. 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 or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8902 14

    Original file (NR8902 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 8 January 2015. 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 (HOMC) Performance Fvaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 23 September...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9425 14

    Original file (NR9425 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 8 August 2014, and the advisory opinion from HQMC dated 19 May 2014, copies of which are 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...