Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04362-07
Original file (04362-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100




 BJG
 Docket No:4362-07
 25 July 2007


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.
Your previous case, docket number 2718-07, was denied on 19 April 2007. In that case you requested, in part, that the fitness report for 1 October 1998 to 31 July 1999 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) undated letter, by raising the marks in sections E.2 (“effectiveness under stress”), F.3 (“setting the example”) and F.5 (“communication skills”) from “C” (fifth best of seven possible marks) to “D” (fourth best); and that the fitness report for 1 November 2000 to 30 September 2001 be modified, in accordance with the RS’s letter, by raising the marks in sections E.2 and G.2 (“decision making ability”) from “D” to “E” (third best). In light of the RS’s new letter dated 14 April 2007, a copy of Which is attached, the portion of your case concerning the reporting periods listed above was reconsidered.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 July 2007. 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 current application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board’s file on your prior case, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 12 June 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 advisory opinion, specifically noting that the RS’s new letter does not indicate the information he cites to justify higher marks was unknown to him when the original reports were submitted. Accordingly, the Board again voted to deny relief. 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,
 ‘1
 Executive
Enclosures
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103
IN REPLY REFER TO:

 1610
 MMER 12 Jun 07

MEMORANDUM FOR   THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    RECONSIDERATION IN THE CASE


dtd 14 April 07 w/attachrnents
(b) PERB Memo for BCNR 1610 MMER/PERB of 20 Mar 07

 1.       Reference (a) was submitted has been reviewed. it is
 the position of the PERE that the information contained in
the aforementioned statement is not sufficient to establish
 a        factual basis to refute the accuracy ~ Ø~1~Øfitness reports for the periods of 19981001 to
 19990731 (CH) and 20001101 to 20010930 (AN)
2.       As stated in paragraph 3.a. of reference (b), the PERB found that the reporting senior’s justification is based solely on the fact that the petitioner was passed over for promotion. Most importantly, they also found that there are no new facts presented about the Marine’s conduct or performance that were unknown when the original report was prepared. After reviewing reference (a), specifically the Reporting Senior’s new letter, it appears that he merely validates and provides more insight into his original comments and fails to offer any new evidence.
3.       The PERB declines to case and forwards the enclosure ~

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00986-08

    Original file (00986-08.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2007 | 09124-07

    Original file (09124-07.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. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 21 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...

  • 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 | 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 | CY2007 | 08427-07

    Original file (08427-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS3280 RUSSELL ROADQUANTICO, VA 22134-5103 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDSSubj~ MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OFDD Form 149 of 15...

  • 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 | CY2007 | 02719-07

    Original file (02719-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:2719-0725 June 2007This is in reference to your letter dated 14 March 2007 with enclosures requesting correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.You requested that the fitness report for 17 August to 31 December 2004 be modified by changing section I (reporting senior (RS) comments) to reflect “Promote at soonest...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02818-07

    Original file (02818-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2008 | 07857-08

    Original file (07857-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed the requested changes to sections E.2, F.1, F.3 and F.5; but with regard to sections D.2, E.1 and G.2, directed raising the marks to “E” rather than “F.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 October 2008. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB),...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02605-07

    Original file (02605-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...