DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BJG
Docket No: 10583-06
19 May 2008
This is in reference to your letter dated 24 November 2006 with
enclosure, seeking reconsideration of your previous application
for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions
of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552. Your
previous case, docket number 7199-06, was denied on
7 September 2006.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 15 May 2008. 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, and your prior case file. In
addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters
Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated
14 September 2007, a copy of which is attached. The Board also
considered your rebuttal letter dated 16 October 2007 with
enclosures and electronic mail dated 13 May 2008.
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.
The Board recognized it is possible the contested fitness report
was adversely affected by the 15 June 2005 result of the command
climate investigation, which concluded you should not be
relieved for cause, as well as the numerous other matters you
cited that could have caused the reporting senior (RS) to be
biased against you. However, the Board was unable to find that
the report was, in fact, affected by any of these matters. In
this regard, the Board particularly noted that the investigation
concluded you should receive a nonpunitive letter of caution for
“poor judgment” during the reporting period in question, and
that your RS should “consider marking and commenting on [your]
above cited poor judgment”; that your RS nevertheless did not
comment on this, nor did he give you an adverse mark in
judgment; that your RS assigned you a “D” (fourth best of seven
possible marks) in judgment; and that the reviewing officer
concurred with the appraisal the RS gave you. In view of the
above, your application has again 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.
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 D. SALMAN
Acting Executive Director
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06199-07
Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS3280 RUSSELL ROADQUANTICO, VA 221 34-51 03 : MMER/ PERBJUL 052007MEMORANDUN FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDSSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERE) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF(a) DD Form 149 of 8 Feb 07(b) MCO P1610.7F (C) JAGINST 5800.7C (JAG MANUAL)1. The Board also found that the petitioner does not substantiate the command investigation...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01527-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 July 2008. 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 | CY2007 | 01458-07
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:1458-079 March 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.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 13 May to 31 October 2005 by removing section K.4 (reviewing officer’s comments)A three-member...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05725-08
c. Petitioner contends the contested fitness report, in which she received the lowest marks of her 17-year career, was the result of bias against her on the part of the reporting senior (RS) “and may have even been gender related.” She asserts the RS never explained to her why he had marked her so low, when his comments would appear to support higher marks. e. Petitioner provided supporting statements from a chief warrant officer, a lieutenant colonel and a gunnery sergeant (enclosures (2)...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06678-06
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O370 -5100BJGDocket No: 6678-0617 November 2005This 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 removing the fitness reports for 1 June 2004 to 9 May 2005 and 9 May to 30 June 2005, as well as your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.It...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00986-08
Enclosure1610MMER/PERMEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDSSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFOMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OFRef: (a)Form 149 of 15 Jun 07(b) MC&PTflQ.7F1. In Support of his appeal, he has submitted a letter from the RS requesting the marks be changed.3. Section C of the report clearly states that MRO closed 170 trouble tickets, thus indicating that the RS did take thisSubj: MARINE CORPS...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10192-06
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. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 8 November 2006 to consider ~~~~fl*LlItpetit1on contained in reference (a) Modification of the fitness report covering the period 20050423 to 20050911 (CH) was requested. Per paragraph 8007.2 of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02818-07
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 20 March 2007, a copy of which is attached. the Marine that were not known when the original report was prepared.” The Board found that the reporting senior’s advocacy letter does not explain how the five attribute marks of “D” are inaccurate and in error. The reviewing officer’s letter offers no explanation of what specifically about the petitioner’s performance...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02605-07
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:2605-076 April 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 for19 August 2005 to 21 April 2006 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 4 September 2006, by raising the marks in sections...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02240-08
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 3 March 2008, a copy of which isattached.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, when...