DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 1527-08
2 July 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 June
2006 to 31 May 2007 be modified, in accordance with the
reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 21 August 2007, by
raising the marks in sections D.1 (“Performance”), E.2
(“Effectiveness under Stress”), F.3 (“Setting the Example”), G.1
(“Professional Military Education”), G.2 (“Decision Making
Ability”) and G.3 (“Judgment”) from “D” (fourth best of seven
possible marks) to “E” (third best).
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 2 July 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 12 February and 2 May 2008, and the
RS‘'s letter dated 3 March 2008, 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 reports of the
PERB. The Board further noted the reviewing officer concurred
with the contested original marks. The Board also noted the
RS’s letter of 3 March 2008 did not propose changing sections
E.2 or F.3. Finally, while the Board recognized that the RS’s
letter of 21 August 2007 was submitted within three weeks after
he had signed the original report on 3 August 2007, the Board
was unable to find the proposed higher marks were more accurate
or fair. 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 letters to future selection
boards.
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,
bb. Quu.4
W. DEAN PF
Executive Digettor
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08821-08
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 | 12035-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 February 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 | CY2008 | 07857-08
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed the requested changes to sections E.2, F.1, F.3 and F.5; but with regard to sections D.2, E.1 and G.2, directed raising the marks to “E” rather than “F.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 October 2008. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB),...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00986-08
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 | 10809-08
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 | CY2010 | 02180-10
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 the fitness report in question, you may submit the RS's letter and the RO’s endorsement to future selection boards. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05679-08
You requested, in effect, that the fitness report for 1 May 2006 to 31 May 2007 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 26 February 2008, by raising the Mark in section D.1 (“Performance”) from “Cc” (fifth best of seven possible marks) to “E” (third best), D.2 (“Proficiency”) from “D” (fourth best) to “E,” E.3 (“Initiative”) from “D” to “E,” F.1 (“Leading Subordinates”) from “C” to “D,” F.2 (“Developing Subordinates”) from *C” to “E,” F.5...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 12463 12
You requested that the fitness report for 25 August 2008 to 30 June 2009 be modified, in accordance with.the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 18 June 2012, by raising the marks in . A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 April 2013. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02153-10
: A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 April 2010. 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 | CY2010 | 08062-10
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 names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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.