Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08405-07
Original file (08405-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100



JSR
Docket No. 08405-07
8 November 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.

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 or, in the alternative, that a “not observed” report be inserted in your record to prevent a date gap. Finally, you requested that both reports be modified further by removing section K (reviewing officer’s marks and comments)

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 November 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 7 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 PERE. Concerning the fitness report for 13 September 2003 to 16 February 2004, the Board wa s unable to find the reporting senior lacked sufficient observation of your performance to submit an observed report, noting observation need not be direct. The Board found the comments in the PERB report about section K of the fitness report for 1 September 2003 to 16 February 2004 equally applicable to se c tion K of the report for 17 February to 10 May 2004. In view of the above, your application has been denied. The names and v o tes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.





It is regretted that the that favorable action can the Board reconsider its material evidence or on the the Board. In this regard a presumption of regularity Consequently, when applying naval record, the burden existence of probable mat ter circumstances of your case are such not be taken. You are entitled to have decision upon submission of new and r matter not previously considered by, it is important to keep in mind that attaches to all official records. for a correction of an official is on the applicant to demonstrate the t rial error or injustice.
Sincerely,

W.      
DEAN PFIEFFER
Executive Director
Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 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 | 12302-08

    Original file (12302-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested completely removing the fitness reports for 25 July 2003 to 4 January 2004 (extended from 31. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report ending 4 January 2004 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “MRO [Marine reported on] continues to seek self-improvement and is developing into a well rounded administrator”; removing, from section K.4 (reviewing officer (RO)’s comments),...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01098-07

    Original file (01098-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 203705100BJGDocket No:1098-071 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.You requested, in effect, that the fitness reports for 31 (sic) September 2001 to 10 March 2002 and 11 March to 30 June 2002 be modified, in accordance with the reviewing officer’s (RO’s) letter dated 11 August...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05058-08

    Original file (05058-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 September 2008. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion, except to note your request was not for remedial consideration for promotion to master sergeant, but adjusting the date of rank and effective date of your promotion to reflect selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Master Sergeant Selection...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09341-08

    Original file (09341-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant: of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested reports for 17 August 2001 to 16 January 2002 and 17 January to 17 June 2002 by changing the entry in section A, item 8.a, from “xX” (required to fire pistol but did not fire) to “N” (not required to qualify with pistol); and the report for 15 May to 31 December 2003 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “one weakness [you have] made good improvement...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01522-07

    Original file (01522-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-51 00BJGDocket No:1522-079 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 for7 September 2002 to 30 June 2003 by removing the following reporting senior (RS) comments from...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03925-06

    Original file (03925-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:3925-067 September 2006Dear SergeantThis 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 21 May 2002 to 14 April 2003 and 31 May 2003 to 19 March 2004 be modified by deleting from section I (“Directed and Additional Comments”)...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10212-07

    Original file (10212-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is presumed you desire removing that failure of selection as well.Concerning the report for 1 August to 1 November 1999, you requested removing from section K.4 (reviewing officer’s (RO’s) comments) the sentences “He has valuable experience from prior MOS~ [military occupational specialty] billets that he needs to apply towards his current MOS.” and “His ground duties managerial/leadership aggressiveness needs to improve.” it is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CNC) has...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07740-08

    Original file (07740-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 October 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...