DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BJG
Docket No: 7124-08
14 August 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 that the fitness report for 16 December 2002 to
14 July 2003 be modified by raising the marks assigned by the
reporting senior and removing section K (reviewing officer’s
marks and comments).
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 14 August 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 22 July 2008, a copy of which is
attached. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated
28 July 2008 with enclosures.
2 NAVY ANNEX Av
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.
Since the Board found no defect in your performance record, it
had no grounds to remove either of your failures of selection by
the Fiscal Year 2008 and 2009 Lieutenant Colonel Selection
Boards. 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,
us
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Di
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07385-08
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the fitness report for 1 February to 22 March 2000, as you requested, by removing from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”) “but sometimes does not calculate all factors before acting” and “- Moderate supervision is still required for SNO [subject named officer] .” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01981-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 2011. 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 fora correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09245-09
(reviewing officer’s marks and comments.) 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 ef an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
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 | CY2008 | 05058-08
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 | CY2010 | 03374-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 June 2010. 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 warranting removal of your failure of selection by the FY 2010 Captain Selection Board. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08458-10
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 | CY2008 | 01203-08
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 remove the original report or enter the revised report in your record, you may submit the RS’s letter to future selection boards. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05333-01
directed that your Naval record will be corrected by removing therefrom the following fitness report: Having reviewed all the facts of record, the Board has the Performance Evaluation Review Board Date of Keport Reporting Senior Period of Report 22 Jan 99 980801 to 981231 (CH) There will be inserted in your Naval record a memorandum in 2. review ailed + Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) to remove the Change of Reporting Senior Fitness Report for the period 980801 to 981231. equests...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06373-06
Specifically concerning the contested section K of the fitness report for 2 September 2000 to 5 March 2001, the Board found the mark in section K.3, the second lowest of eight possible marks, did not require marking section K.2 (“Evaluation”) “Do Not Concur [with reporting senior].” The Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion from MMOA-4 in concluding your selection by the FY 2007 Major Selection Board would have been definitely unlikely, even if the correction directed by...