Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02170-07
Original file (02170-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied





BJG
 Docket No:       2170-07
 2 June 2008









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 reports for
24 February to 30 June 2005 and 1 July to 25 September 2005 be letter of 11 December 2005, by changing the mark in section K.3 (RO’s “Comparative Assessment”) to the fourth best of eight possible marks. The current section K.3 mark in the report for 24 February to 30 June 2005 is the third best, while that in the report for 1 July to 25 September 2005 is the fifth best.
A three—member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 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. 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.
 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. While the Board noted that the RO’s letter was submitted soon after he had submitted the contested original marks, on 22 July and 3 October 2005, respectively, the Board was unable to find the proposed revised marks were more accurate or fair. In this regard, the Board particularly noted that with respect to the report for 24 February to 30 June 2005, the proposed change would give you a lower mark than that originally assigned. 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.
Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness reports in question, you may submit the RO’s 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 | CY2005 | 10223-05

    Original file (10223-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:10223-0516 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 for 1 October 2000 to 31 May 2001 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 3 January 2005, by raising the marks in sections...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08838-08

    Original file (08838-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 October 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 | CY2008 | 09204-08

    Original file (09204-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Tt is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 10 January to 15 May 2007 as you requested. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06116-09

    Original file (06116-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You also requested completely removing the fitness report for 15 November 2004 to 30 May 2005 and modifying the report for 1 June to l September 2005 by removing the entire section K (RO marks and comments) or, if that modification is denied, raising the mark in section K.3. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing all the contested comments from sections I and K.4 of the report for 14 June to 3 August 2004; modifying the report for 15 November 2004 to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05341-09

    Original file (05341-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 July 2009. 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 | CY2006 | 03848-06

    Original file (03848-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You now request that this section K be modified, in accordance with the RO’s letter dated 15 February 2006, to reflect that the RO had “insufficient” observation to assess your performance.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 August 2007. The petitioner offers an advocacy letter from the reviewing officer which requests that the report now be marked “insufficient observation” vice “sufficient...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05665-08

    Original file (05665-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 August 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 | CY2006 | 06373-06

    Original file (06373-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Specifically concerning the contested section K of the fitness report for 2 September 2000 to 5 March 2001, the Board found the mark in section K.3, the second lowest of eight possible marks, did not require marking section K.2 (“Evaluation”) “Do Not Concur [with reporting senior].” The Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion from MMOA-4 in concluding your selection by the FY 2007 Major Selection Board would have been definitely unlikely, even if the correction directed by...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR10593 14

    Original file (NR10593 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report in question, you may submit the RO’s letter to future selection boards. 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 | CY2007 | 09881-07

    Original file (09881-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing, rather than modifying, the contested report for 2 June to 26 October 2006. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 February 2008. 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.