DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BUG
Docket No: 7740-08
13 October 2009
Dear Majori
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 modifying the fitness report for 1 August to
23 September 2001 by raising the mark, in section K.3 _
(reviewing officer’s “Comparative Assessment”), from the fourth
best of eight possible marks to the third best. You also
requested modifying the fitness reports for 16 June 2003 to
15 July 2004 and 16 July 2004 to 31 May 2005-by changing the
entry in section A, item 1.h (*Bil[let] MOS (Military ;
Occupational Specialty]”) from *0402” to “1803.” Finally, you
requested removing your failures of selection by the Fiscal
Year 2007 through 2010 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards.
Tt is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has
directed the requested modification of the report for 1 August
to 23 September 2001,. and Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC)
(Code MMSB) has modified the reports for 16 June 2003 to 15
July 2004 and 16 July 2004 to 31 May 2005 as you requested.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 8 October 2009. 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 reports of the HQMC Performance Evaluation
Review Board (PERB), dated 31 July 2008 and 16 July 2009, and
the advisory opinion from the HQOMC Officer Counseling and
Evaluation Section (MMOA-4), dated 12 August 2009, 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 advisory opinion from MMOA-~4
in concluding your selection by any of the promotion boards by
which you failed of selection would have been definitely
unlikely, even if your record had reflected the correction
directed by CMC and those effected by HOMC. Accordingly, your —
application for relief beyond that effected by CMC and HOMC has.
been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel
will be furnished upon se
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,
. W. DEAN PREDRE
Executive Di
Enclosures
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 | CY2009 | 08554-09
The Board further concurred with the advisory opinion in = concluding your selection by the FY 2010 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board would have been definitely unlikely, even if your record had not included the fitness report CMC has directed removing. request, a Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report for i July 2005 to 21 June 2006, you may submit the RS’s letter and the RO’s endorsement to future selection boards. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01749-08
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the report ending 31 December 2001 and modifying the report ending 6 July 2004 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), all the material to which you objected: “With guidance”; “Adequately” and “Overall, I rate him 6 of 6 Captains [sic] in the Battalion. [sic].” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered...
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...
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 | 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 | 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 | CY2004 | 05489-04
As indicated in enclosure (2), the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) has modified the report as Petitioner requested. He also failed of selection before the FY 2003 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, however, he is not requesting removal of this failure of selection because the fitness report that includes the contested “Comparative Assessment” was not in his record for that promotion board.2. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08949-08
The Board, consisting of Ms. Nofziger and Messrs. Boyd and Washington, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 14 November 2008, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. c. In enclosure (3), the HQMC office with cognizance over the subject matter concerned commented to the effect that the PERB action warranted removing Petitioner’s failure of selection by the FY 2009...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09249-09
The Board, consisting of Messrs. Ivins, Vogt and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 29 October 2009, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. ‘Enclosure (2), the report of the PERB, reflects that Petitioner's request concerning the report for 31 May to 9 September 2006 was granted, but comments to the effect that Petitioner’s request to modify the report for 5...