Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10209-07
Original file (10209-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100



JSR
Docket No. 10209-07
25 January 2008


T his 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 25 January 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 advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC), dated 30 November 2007, and the e-mail from the HQMC Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 6 December 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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion. Further, in light of the PERB e-mail, the Board found the PERB removal of the fitness report for 1 April to 18 September 2003 did not support removing the contested service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) counseling entries dated 30 May and 28 August 2003, which are mentioned in the removed report. 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 | 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 | 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5198 14

    Original file (NR5198 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested removing the fitness reports for 1 January to 25 June 2007, 11 July to 31 December 2009 and 19 May to 31 December 2010. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report for 1 January to 25 June 2007 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “MRO [Marine reported on] is assigned to the Body Composition Program.” and “SECT[ion] A, Item 5a: MRO is currently assigned to the Body...

  • 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 | CY2007 | 03844-07

    Original file (03844-07.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. In addition, the Board considered the reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 24 April 2007 and 11 March 2008, and the advisory opinion from the HOMC Military Law Branch, Judge Advocate Division (JAM3), dated 4 September 2007, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8532 13

    Original file (NR8532 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 July 2014. in addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 18 October 2013, the e- Mail from HQMC dated 19 November 2013, and the advisory opinions from HOMC dated 25 March 2014 with enclosure and 8 May 2014, copies of which are attached, - After careful and conscientious...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10533-07

    Original file (10533-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O37O-5100 JSRDocket No. 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 (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 16 and 19 November 2007 and 15 January 2008,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11386-09

    Original file (11386-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested completely removing the fitness report for 31 March to 5 October 2007. and “completed most tasks when supervised and.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 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 | CY2010 | 08487-10

    Original file (08487-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted im support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 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. Since the Board found insufficient basis to remove your failure of selection by the FY 2011...

  • 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...