DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
“Docket No: 2565-08
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.
You requested, in effect, removing the fitness report for 1
January to 30 April 2007 or modifying it by marking section A,
item 6.a (“Commendatory Material”) to reflect your award of the
Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal (NAM) and a Certificate
of Appreciation and further modifying the report by raising the
mark in section K.3 (reviewing officer (RO) ‘’s “Comparative
Assessment”) from the fourth best of eight possible marks to the
third best.
It is noted that Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) has entered in
your record a memorandum reflecting that item 6.a of the fitness
report in question should be marked to reflect the Certificate
of Commendation.
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 HOMC Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB),
dated 10 March 2008, and a memorandum for the record dated 15
May 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 report of the PERB
in concluding the fitness report at issue should not be removed
or modified further. The Board noted you provided no
documentation to prove you had received a NAM during the period
in question. The Board was unable to find the mark in section
K.3 should match that shown in the preceding report, in which
you had the same RO. 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.
In view of the above, your application for relief beyond that
effected by HOMC 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,
“eet D
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director
Enclosure
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 | CY2013 | NR9184 13
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 58. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by modifying the fitness report for 1 July 2012 to 31 March 2013 (copy at Tab A), in accordance with the reviewing officer (RO)’s letter of 22 May 2013 (at enclosure (1)), by raising the mark in section K.3...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09583-09
You requested modifying the fitness report for 8 August 2005 to 31 May 2006 by removing the entire section K (reviewing officer’s (RO’s) marks and comments). 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...
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 | CY2010 | 08103-10
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BUG Docket No: 8103-10 14 September 2010 Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records Secretary of the Navy (a} Tile LO U.S.c. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that the fitness report for 1 November 2007 to 15 September 2008 (copy at Tab A) be modified...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07860-08
It is further noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the report by removing, from section I (reporting senior (RS) “Directed and Additional Comments”) “DIRECTED COMMENT -—- SECT A, ITEM 7b: I recommend that the MRO [Marine reported on] not be promoted with contemporaries.” And completely removing section K (reviewing officer (RO) marks and comments). A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 12829-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 January 2011. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB, except to not you did not request completely removing section K (RO’s marks and comments) of the reports in question. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
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 | CY2011 | 03187-11
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected by modifying the fitness report for 22 June 2008 to 31 March 2009 (copy at Tab A) by removing section K (reviewing officer's (RO’s) marks and comments). Enclosure (2) reflects that the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board has directed the requested...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09881-07
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. 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.