DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BIG
Docket No: 9881-07
22 February 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 that the fitness report for 2 June to
26 October 2006 be modified by removing specific reporting
Senior and reviewing officer (RO) comments and raising the mark
in section K.3 (RO’s “Comparative Assessment") from the fifth
best of eight possible marks to the third best. You further
requested that the report for 27 October to 31 December 2006 be
modified by raising the mark in section K.3 from the sixth to
the third best.
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. 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
reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation
Review Board (PERB) dated 26 and 30 October 2007, copies of
which are 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 warranting the requested modification of the
report for 27 October to 31 December 2006. In this connection,
the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in
the report of the PERB dated 30 October 2007. In the absence of
any indication that you object to the PERB action to remove,
rather than modify, the report for 2 June to 26 October 2006,
the Board found that action should stand. In view of the above,
your application for relief beyond or other than that effected
by CMC 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,
adsl
W. DEAN PPFPEURF
Executive Di r
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03202-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 May 2011. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01098-07
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 | CY2005 | 10223-05
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 | 09204-08
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 | CY2006 | 06373-06
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 | CY2010 | 08458-10
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed the requested modification of the report for 26 July 2006 to 28 February 2007. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 August 2010. 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 | CY2014 | NR4252 14
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed the requested changes to the marks in sections E.2, F.1 and G.1. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 May 2014. 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 | CY2009 | 02038-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 April 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 | CY2009 | 06116-09
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 | CY2008 | 02565-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 May 2008. In this regard, the Board noted that the RO comments in section K.4 of these reports are not identical, and that you had no supporting letter from the RO concerning the period now in question, as you did for the preceding period. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...