DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BUG
Docket No:
6 March 2009
2949-08
This igs in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record purs
United States Cod
pant to the provisions of title 10 of
e, section 1552.
the
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has
directed modifyin
1 July 2006 to 30
item 4 (“Duty Ass
Officer.” Headqu
corrected section
sergeant]” in ite
item 1.£ (*DOR [D
(“Occasion”) and
Covered - To”).
A three-member pa
Records, sitting
application on 5 March 2009.
injustice were re
regulations and p
Board. Documenta
of your applicati
support thereof,
regulations and p
report of the HQM
dated 21 March 20
Enlisted Promotio
gy the contested fitness report for
mil.e (“Grade”), “20031001 [1 October
in executive session, considered your
C Performance Evaluation Review Board
n Section (MMPR-2), dated 27 June 2008
April 2007 by changing the entry in section A,
ignment”) from “Supply Chief” to “Supply
aArters Marine Corps (HQMC) has further
A of the report by entering “GYSGT [gunnery
2003)" in
ate of Rank]”), “TR [transfer]” in item 3.a
“20070331 [31 March 2007]”" in item 3.b
(“Period
mel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Your allegations of error and
Viewed in accordance with administrative
rocedures applicable to the proceedings of this
ry material considered by the Board consisted
on, together with all material submitted in
your naval record and applicable statutes,
olicies. In addition, the Board considered the
(PERB) ,
08, and the advisory opinions from the HOMC
, and the
HQMC Manpower Inf
Information Syste
copies of which a
counsel’s rebutta
After careful and
record, the Board
insufficient to e
error or injustic
concurred with th
and the advisory
The statements yo
your application
disrespectful. T
did not contradic
the alleged disre
enlisted Marines,
began leaving the
they had all left
fitness report pl
Concerning the ju
report, the Board
and it observed t
incident...by the
comment, in the j
refusal to sign t
judgment, the Boa
refusal does not
while the Board d
fitness report,
this regard, the
4
rmation Operations, Manpower Management
s Division (MIO), dated 3 September 2008,
e attached. The Board also considered your
letter dated 28 March 2008.
conscientious consideration of the entire
found that the evidence submitted was
tablish the existence of probable material
In this connection, the Board substantially
comments contained in the report of the PERB
pinions from MMPR-2 and MIO.
provided at enclosures (9) through (13) of
id not persuade the Board that you were not
e Board found the statement at enclosure (13)
the assertion, in the fitness report, that
pect occurred in the presence of younger
as the statement says “The supply Marines
warehouse area” when it occurred, not that
The Board was unable to find the contested
ced undue emphasis on one incident.
tification for section E of the fitness
did not find the word “altercation” ambiguous,
ere is no reference to “The first
previous Inspector-Instructor.” Regarding the
stification for section G, that your initial
e contested counseling entry exhibited poor
d did not accept your assertion that such
ean you exhibited poor judgment. Finally,
d not condone the late submission of the
did not find this invalidated the report.
oard was unable to find the late submission
In
impaired your ability to respond effectively.
In view of the abd
effected by CMC ar
of the members of
It is regretted tt
that favorable act
the Board reconsid
material evidence
the Board. In thj
a presumption of 1
pve, your application for relief beyond that
nd HOMC has been denied. The names and votes
the panel will be furnished upon request.
nat the circumstances of your case are such
tion cannot be taken. You are entitled to have
jer its decision upon submission of new and
or other matter not previously considered by
is regard, it is important to keep in mind that
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,
Enclosures
OD Ee:
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04306-07
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed correcting the contested fitness report by changing the entry in item 17.a (“Commendatory”) from “No” to “Yes.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 July 2008. The Board agreed with the advisory opinion from MMOA-4 in concluding the correction of item 17.a of the fitness report at issue would not have appreciably enhanced...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02803-07
He further requested removal of the fitness report for 20 November 1998 to 31 March 1999 (copy at Tab C in enclosure (1)). d. In enclosure (3), Petitioner added his request to remove the page 11 entry dated 24 March 1999. e. In enclosure (4), the HQMC PERB commented to the effect that the contested fitness report should stand. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing the service record page 11d (“Administrative Remarks (1070) 7”) entry dated 24 March 1999.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07980-08
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the contested fitness report. Having reviewed all the facts of record, the Board has directed that your naval record will be corrected by removing the following fitness report: Date of Report Reporting Senior Period of Report 16 January 2006 20050101 to 20051231 (AN) 2. By direction DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROAD QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103 1070 MIO SEP 8...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03433-08
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected by changing his primary military occupational specialty (PMOS) to 0351 (infantry assaultman) ; removing the adverse fitness report for 15 September 2002 to 13 March 2003, a copy of which is at Tab A (enclosure (2) shows the Headquarters Marine Corps {(HOMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB} has...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09077-07
By letter dated 7 June 2005, the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) recommended to the Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) that Petitioner’s name be withheld from the FY 2006 Colonel Promotion List. This advisory stated he was withheld from the FY 2006 promotion list because of the adverse fitness report (which had not yet been removed), and that without the report, his record is “obviously competitive.” Petitioner was not considered by the FY 2007 Colonel Selection Board. p. Enclosure (15)...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09788-09
In enclosure (3), MMOA-4, the HOMC Officer Counseling and Evaluation Section, commented to the effect that Petitioner's failures of selection to lieutenant colonel should not be removed, notwithstanding the PERB action, in view of the noncompetitive cumulative relative values in his fitness reports as a major, as well as a fitness report date gap. Notwithstanding enclosure (3), the Board finds Petitioner’s failures of selection to lieutenant colonel should be removed as well. b, That his...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07166-01
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removal of the contested fitness report for 1 January to 2 February 1996. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated 30 July 2002 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 material error or injustice.In concluding that no further correction to your fitness report record...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03147-11
Petitioner further requested removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) entry dated 19 March 2008, a copy of which is at Tab F. Finally, he requested setting aside the Commandant Of the Marine Corps (CMC)'s revocation dated 8 July 2008 of his selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 First Sergeant Selection Board and promoting him to first sergeant with the lineal precedence he would have had, but for the revocation. The PERB report at enclosure (2) stated that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 06664-11
The Board, consisting of Ms. Aldrich and Messrs. Pfeiffer and Spain, reviewed Pétitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 8 September 2011, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the limited corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)") entry dated 26 October 2010. That any material or entries inconsistent with...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03999-10
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 removing the fitness report for 8 December 2007 to 8 August 2008, a copy of which is at Tab A. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing all remaining references to his NJP of 7 August 2008, to include the following: {1) Unit Punishment Book entry (2) Second sentence,...