Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9953 14
Original file (NR9953 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

SSL Pon CORE Sr ISN See TNS noSevmeS
701 5. COURTHOUSE RWAL, SUITE Peer

ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

JSR
Docket No: NR9953-14
13 November 2Z2U14

 

Dear sergeant iy

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 ef the
United States Code, section 1S Sais

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 13 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 materia
support thereof, your naval record and applicable s
regulations and policies. in addition, tl d
report of the Headquarters Marine Corps P

ex
Review Board (PERB), dated 4 September 2014, a COpy
attached.

‘1 submitted in

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

h

om)
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 | NR9955 14

    Original file (NR9955 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    JSR pocket No: NRg¥Y55-14 13 November 2014 y Dear Gunnery sergeant

  • 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 | 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 | NR9944 14

    Original file (NR9944 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    "; removing, from the justification for the mark in section G.3, “MRO received a 6105"; removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), Sect[ion] A, Item 6b: MRO received a 6105 for an alcohol related incident that occurred on 8 Nov 2013.” and removing, from section k.4 (reviewing officer's comments), *,imdicated in the 6105 counseling,”. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9956 14

    Original file (NR9956 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 November 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • 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 | NR9958 14

    Original file (NR9958 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 | 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 | NR9934 14

    Original file (NR9934 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. 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 In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9959 14

    Original file (NR9959 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 November 2014. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board a>, 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.