DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
-Docket No: 2208-08
15 May 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.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 15 May 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 3 March 2008, a copy of which is
attached, and your undated reply.
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.
Concerning your allegation you were never counseled that your
performance was substandard, the Board noted the contested
fitness report does not reflect your performance was substandard
in any way. The Board was unable to find the report was
influenced by your having submitted for retirement, or that it
was based on a period of about 40 days. The Board was likewise
unable to find your award of the Meritorious Service Medal
inconsistent with the report at issue, noting the report
specifically acknowledged the medal. Finally, if you are
correct that the reporting senior was relieved because of
unspecified “inappropriate behavior with enlisted Marines,” the
Board was unable to find this would call into question his
ability to render a fair and accurate performance evaluation,
noting the reviewing officer concurred with the appraisal he
gave you.
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,
Se BH stro eseinti sie
ROBERT D. SALMAN
Acting Executive Director
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10449-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 January 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. The Board was likewise unable to find the RO’s portion of the contested fitness report should have been “not observed,” noting that an observed...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00193-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted an 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 | CY2001 | 07121-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 5 September 2001, a copy of which is attached. In her statement appended to reference (a), the petitioner has merely furnished a second rebuttal to this already properly and completely adjudicated evaluation. In his Section C comments, the Reporting Senior '98 exercise and stated her immediate senior qualified his statements regarding the petitioner's...
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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00230-99
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 11 January 1999, a copy of which is attached. Certainly poor management of his supply account, as concluded in the investiga- tion and correctly recorded by the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11210-10
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report by removing, from the third sighting officer addendum page, “This report is a valid adverse report due to MRO [Marine reported on] receiving a 6105 counseling.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 November 2010. In this regard, the Board was unable to find the lateness harmed your ability to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Fri Nov 03 10_20_27 CST 2000
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has added your rebuttal statement to your contested adverse fitness report for 2 July to 28 September 1992, and removed references to your not having submitted a rebuttal. the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 3 November 1998, a copy of which is attached. in the report of the PERB in finding that your fitness report at issue should stand.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09823-10
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the contested reports for 11 March to 15 July 2009 and 1 August to 30 September 2009; and modifying the report for 1 October 2008 to 10 March 2009 by removing the mark in section A, item 6.c (“Disciplinary Action”) and removing, from the third sighting officer’s comments, “SNM [Subject named Marine] has been the subject of numerous Human Factor Boards and Stan [standardization] Boards; all recommendations from...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04942-07
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 | CY2009 | 03192-09
You requested completely removing the fitness report for 1 June 2005 to 31 March 2006. In addition, the Board considered the reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 18 March and 2 April 2009, copies of which are attached. 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.