Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01201-08
Original file (01201-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 .

 

BUG
Docket No: 1201-08
7 November 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, in effect, that the fitness report for

1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007 be modified, in accordance with
the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter of 22 June 2007, by raising
the mark in section F.1 (“leading subordinates”) from “C” (fafth
best of seven possible marks) to “D" (fourth best).

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 6 November 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
report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation
Review Board (PERB), dated 1 February 2008, 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,
noting the reviewing officer concurred with the contested
original mark. While the Board recognized the RS’s letter was
submitted less than two months after he had signed the fitness
report at issue on 1 May 2007, the Board was unable to find the
revised mark was more fair and accurate than the original. 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.

Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report in
question, you may submit the RS’s letter to future selection
boards.

It ig 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,

Ivo

W. DEAN PF
Executive Dikdcvor

‘Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01527-08

    Original file (01527-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 July 2008. 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 | 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 | CY2008 | 08821-08

    Original file (08821-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 December 2008. 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 | CY2008 | 10809-08

    Original file (10809-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested, in effect, that the fitness report for 1 July 2007 to 31 May 2008 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 28 August 2008, by changing the marks in sections F.1 (“leading subordinates”), F.2 (“developing subordinates”) and F.4 (“ensuring well-being of subordinates”) from “H” (not observed) to “D” (fourth best of seven possible marks); raising sections F.3 (“setting the example”) and F.5 (“communication skills”) from "D” to “BE” (third best)...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02890-09

    Original file (02890-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (*“Decision Making Ability”) from “D"” to *E.” : A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval ' Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 October 2009. In addition, the Board considered the reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 18 March and 10 August 2009, copies of which are attached, your letter of 27 March 2009 and the RS’s letter of the same date. Consequently, when applying for a correction...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10516-07

    Original file (10516-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 January 2008. 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 | 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 | 04362-07

    Original file (04362-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 priorcase, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated12June 2007, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11630-08

    Original file (11630-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested that the fitness report for 10 January to 29 July 2006 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 16 November 2006 and the reviewing officer’s (RO’s) undated endorsement, by raising the mark in Section G.1 (“Professional Military Education”) from *c” (fifth best of seven possible marks) to “E” (third best) and section G.3 (“Judgment”) from “B” (sixth best) to *c.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05946-08

    Original file (05946-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested, in effect, that the fitness report for 9 June to 25 August 2006 be modified, in accordance with the reporting (RS’s) letter dated 2 June 2008, by raising the marks senior’s in sections D.1 (“Performance”), D.2 (“Proficiency”), F.2 (“Developing Subordinates”), F.4 (‘Ensuring Well-being of Subordinates”) and G.2 (“Decision Making Ability”) from “D” (fourth best of seven possible marks) to “E” (third best); and section G.1 (“Professional Military Education”) from “E” to...