Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08375-06
Original file (08375-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 BJG
 Docket No:8375-06
 5 October 2006





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.
You requested, in effect, that the fitness report for
 29 November 2001 to 30 June 2002 be amended, in accordance with the reporting senior (PS) letter dated 14 March 2006, by raising the marks in sections D.l (“Performance”) and D.2 (“Proficiency”) from “C” (fifth best of seven possible marks) to “D” (fourth best); P.1 (“Courage”) from “H” (not observed) to “C”; E.2 (“Effectiveness under Stress”) from “H” to “D”; E.3 (“Initiative”) from “D” to “E” (third best); F.l (“Leading Subordinates”), F.2 (“Developing Subordinates”), F.3 (“Setting the Example”), F.4 (“Ensuring Well-being of Subordinates”) and F.5 (“Communication Skills”) from “C” to “D”; G.1 (“Professional Military Education”) from “B” (sixth best) to “C”; and G.2 (“Decision Making Ability”), G.3 (“Judgment”) and H.1 (“Evaluations”) from “C” to “D.”
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 October 2006. 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 31 August 2006, 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. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
Although the Board voted not to amend the fitness report in question, you may submit the RS letter to future selection boards.
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. 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,


W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03202-11

    Original file (03202-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 May 2011. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05658-07

    Original file (05658-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370~s 100BJGDocket No:05658-0720 July 2007This 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.You requested, in effect, that the fitness report for 4 June 2005 to 30 June 2006 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior (RS) ‘s letter dated 17 Nay 2007, by raising the marks in sections D.l...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10218-06

    Original file (10218-06.rtf) 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. The reporting senior is to also ensure these comments neither conflict or obscure the remainder Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) of the evaluation. The Board found that the section “I” comments do not conflict with the attribute markings and are in accordance...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07208-06

    Original file (07208-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 2 August 2006 to consider Lieutenant Colon ‘ petition contained in reference (a). He provides an advocacy letter from the reporting senior that states, “these changes will better reflect his (MRO’s) overall performance as it relates to my cumulative average on reports written on majors.” He also requests that seven attribute markings be changed on the fitness report covering the period 20020611 to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08559-09

    Original file (08559-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    “You requested, in effect, that the fitness report for 28 November 2007 to 31 May 2008 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 8 May 2009, by raising the marks in sections D.1 (“Performance”), D.2 (“Proficiency”), E.1 ("Courage”), F.1 (“Leading Subordinates”),. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05679-08

    Original file (05679-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested, in effect, that the fitness report for 1 May 2006 to 31 May 2007 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 26 February 2008, by raising the Mark in section D.1 (“Performance”) from “Cc” (fifth best of seven possible marks) to “E” (third best), D.2 (“Proficiency”) from “D” (fourth best) to “E,” E.3 (“Initiative”) from “D” to “E,” F.1 (“Leading Subordinates”) from “C” to “D,” F.2 (“Developing Subordinates”) from *C” to “E,” F.5...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00625-06

    Original file (00625-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 19 January 2006, 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. consequently,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01206-08

    Original file (01206-08.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100JSRDocket No: 1206-0827 March 2008This 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.You requested, in effect, that the fitness report for 29 September 2006 to 27 February 2007 be modified by changing the beginning date from 29 September 2006 to 29 August 2006; raising the marks in sections...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 06756-11

    Original file (06756-11.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. 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 | CY2009 | 11400-09

    Original file (11400-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (“Professional Military Education”) from *C” (fifth best} to “D.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material a 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...