D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E N A V Y
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAW ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No: 3618-98
7 September 1999
Dear
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 26 August 1999. 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.
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.
The Board found that your name was removed from the Temporary Disability Retired List
(TDRL) on 10 February 1989 due to your failure to aypzar for a iinal pcriodic physical
examination, and because more than five years had elapsed since your name was placed on
the TDRL. As you have not explained your failure to report for required examinations, or
presented any evidence which demonstrates that the removal of your name from the TDRL
was erroneous or unjust, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your
case. 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
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.
burden is
injustice.
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the
on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08114-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 August 2003. 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 | CY1998 | 05613-98
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 11 August 1999. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion from the Headquarters Marine Corps Officer Assignment Branch, Personnel Management Division (MMOA-4), dated 10 August 1998, a copy of which is attached, and the Master Brief Sheets, providrd by MMOA-4, of officers considered by the FY 1996 and 1997 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards (five selectees...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 07639-98
The new statements at enclosures (2) through (4) of your current application, among these a statement from the reviewing officer who acted on your fitness report at issue, did not persuade them that this report should be removed. 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. Subsequently, Major Performance Evaluation Review Board for removal from the record of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 07995-98
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. The fitness report itself represents the opinions of the reporting senior. The reporting senior stated in his reclama her fitness report was based purely on the member's performance for this reporting period.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00030-99
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removal of your contested fitness report for 1 March to 30 September 1993. 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 the remaining contested fitness report, for 1 March 1991 to 26 April 1992. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 02790-99
official military record, the fitness report 2. Having reviewed all the facts of record, the Board has directed that your Naval record will be corrected by removing therefrom the following fitness report: Date of Report Reportinu Senior Period of Re~ort 6 Jan 98 970701 to 971231 (TR) 2 . However, First Lieutenant record retains serious competitive concerns due to poor -istribution, less competitive Section B marks, and the Reviewing Officer's comments on the Annual fitness report of 960429...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01159-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 27 May 1999. They also found that even if generals with authority over your reviewing officer, specifically, the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps and the Commanding General, Marine Forces Reserve, influenced his decision to relieve you for cause, this would not support setting aside your relief. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 02618-98
The Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB in finding that your contested adverse fitness report should not be removed. Regardless, the report under Sub j : MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY LIEUTENAN SE OF FIRST USMC consideration is the official report of record and the one to which the petitioner responded. (7) ~ajor- advocacy letter of 23 November 1998 claims he was not aware that the petitioner 'was involved...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00839-99
He unsuccessfully petitioned the Performance Evaluation Review Branch (PERB) to remove a Grade Change fitness report for the period 960801'to 970317. requests removal of his failure of selection on the FY99 USMC record and 3. ~ieutena-averall Value and Distribution contains two officers ranked above him and none below.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 02223-99
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested fitness report by removing the sentence "Sgt [your last name] balances work and a difficult situation in an unselfish and unswerving manner." In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 29 March 1999, a copy of which is attached. The petitioner believes that the markings in Items 13c (administrative duties), 13e (handling...