Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04999-07
Original file (04999-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OO



BJG
Docket No: 4999-07
28 June 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.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 June 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 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 23 May 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. The Board found no inconsistency between the marks and comments in the contested fitness report. The Board was unable to find the report was based on one incident, or that it reflected minor flaws or mistakes not significant enough to mention. Finally, the Board was unable to find the reviewing officer (RO) never observed you, noting that section K.1 of the report at issue indicated the RQ’s appraisal was based on “sufficient” observation, and further noting that observation need not be direct. 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.















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 | CY2007 | 05757-07

    Original file (05757-07.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. The Board found the alcohol-related incident cited in the contested fitness report was not a minor matter that did not warrant mentioning. 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 | 03258-07

    Original file (03258-07.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 5 April 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 | 06678-06

    Original file (06678-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2007 | 08405-07

    Original file (08405-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    08405-078 November 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 13 September 2003 to 16 February 2004 be modified by changing it to a “not observed” report and changing the ending date to 19 December 2003; and that the fitness report for 17 February to 10 Nay 2004 be modified by changing the beginning date to 20 December 2003...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09103-08

    Original file (09103-08.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. Although the Board voted not to modify further the fitness report in question, you may submit your letter of 15 March 2008, with the reporting senior’s endorsement, to future selection boards. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02602-07

    Original file (02602-07.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. The petitioner contends the adversity of the report was based on hearsay statements of 15 students; he received no formal counseling from the reporting senior; he implies the report is improper, since it was returned by the third officer sighter for correction; and the report is unwarranted...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05769-07

    Original file (05769-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Finally, he contends that he was never counseled regarding his performance.3. The Board found that it is clear that the petitioner had the opportunity to rebut the reporting senior comments, and the reviewing officer addressed the factual inconsistencies between the reporting senior and petitioner. Finally, the Board found that the petitioner did not sign section “K6”, certifying that he had an opportunity to rebut the reviewing officer’s comments.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04365-07

    Original file (04365-07.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 4 May 2007, a copy of which is attached. Per MCO 1610.llc, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present met on 2 May 2007 to consideration...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03250-07

    Original file (03250-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BJGDocket No:3250-0711 May 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 removing the fitness report for 5 January to 30September 2003 and replacing it with an administrative fillerthrough 14 April 2004.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC)...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04942-07

    Original file (04942-07.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. The Board also considered your rebuttal letters dated 22 and 23 June 2007 and 28 September 2007, each with enclosures.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable...