Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04438-08
Original file (04438-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

JSR
Docket No: 4438-08

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.

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
report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation
Review Board (PERB), dated 2 May 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.
Specifically regarding the contested fitness report for 30
September 2005 to 2 January 2006, the Board found the reviewing
officer’s “Comparative Assessment” in section K.3 did not render
the report adverse. Concerning the report for 1 August 2006 to
30 April 2007, the Board did not find the section K.3 mark to be
inconsistent with the accomplishments reflected in the report.
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,

LA
W. DEAN E

Executive Dil XL

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09881-07

    Original file (09881-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03844-07

    Original file (03844-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 August 2008. In addition, the Board considered the reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 24 April 2007 and 11 March 2008, and the advisory opinion from the HOMC Military Law Branch, Judge Advocate Division (JAM3), dated 4 September 2007, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10524-07

    Original file (10524-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 19 November 2007, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted wasinsufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Per paragraph 8007 of reference (b), CMC has the authority to correct fitness report records when documentary evidence...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06240-06

    Original file (06240-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No: 6240-0630 November 2006This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title ~0 of the United States Code, section 1552.You requested that the fitness report for 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005 be modified by removing section K (reviewing officer (RO) marks and comments).A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05058-08

    Original file (05058-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 September 2008. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion, except to note your request was not for remedial consideration for promotion to master sergeant, but adjusting the date of rank and effective date of your promotion to reflect selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Master Sergeant Selection...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11033-07

    Original file (11033-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-B 100BJGDocket No:11033-0718 January 2008This 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.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 30 September 2006 to 13 March 2007 by deleting section K (reviewing officer’s mark and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04365-07

    Original file (04365-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 4 May 2007, a copy of which is attached. Per MCO 1610.llc, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present met on 2 May 2007 to consideration...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07587-09

    Original file (07587-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested completely removing the fitness reports for 4 February to 15 May 2006, 3 April to 2 July 2007,and 3 July to 13 October 2007. You further requested, if the report for 4) February to 15 May 2006 is not completely removed, that it be modified by removing, from section K.4 (reviewing officer's comments), “from an external perspective.” | Tt is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 3 July to 13 October 2007 by...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08458-10

    Original file (08458-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed the requested modification of the report for 26 July 2006 to 28 February 2007. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 August 2010. 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 12829-10

    Original file (12829-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...