DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 7860-08
18 September 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.
It is noted that Headquarters Marine Corps (HQOMC) has modified
the contested fitness report for 5 January to 29 February 2000
by changing section A, item 7 (“Recommended for Promotion”) by
moving the “xX” from b (“NO”) to c (“N/A [not applicable]”). 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, considered your
application on 18 September 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
reports of the HOMC Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB),
dated 12 August 2008, a copy of which is attached, and your
letter dated 12 September 2008 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 this connection, the Board substantially
concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB.
The Board did not find inconsistency between the contested
adverse “CH” (change of RS) fitness report and the “FD” (from
temporary duty) report for 1 March to 18 May 2000 showing you
successfully completed the logistics officers course. The Board
recognized that you were not disenrolled, but recycled, and that
you had not been assigned the primary MOS (military occupational
specialty) of 0402 (logistics officer). The Board was unable to
find you were penalized for lacking prerequisites for the school
or lacking natural abilities or aptitudes to complete the
school. Finally, your unsubstantiated statement did not
persuade the Board that the RO has been trying to harm your
career progression.
In view of the above, your application for relief beyond that
effected by HOMC and CMC 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,
| ree BS
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 | 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 | 10350-08
concurred with the rd also considered your rebuttal letter dated ith enclosure. The Board could not find the reviewing officer (RO) lacked sufficient lobservation to evaluate you, noting observation need not be direct. 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 | 03521-09
However, in only 60 days since the end of his last reporting period, I cannot say that he has moved up in his peer ranking.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 June 2009. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 1 April 2009, a copy of which is attached. Removal of the fitness reports for the periods 19990101...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02442-08
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested fitness report by removing the following from section K.4 (reviewing officer (RO) comments): “-Ranks three of three Sgt’s [sergeants] presently assigned to Contracts.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 May 2008. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 03443 12
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S,. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by completely removing the fitness report for 18 June 2007 to 31 May 2008 (copy at Tab A), modified in his previous case by the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) by removal of section K...
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 | CY2003 | 06067-03
In addition, you requested that the fitness report for 1 to 6 June 2001 be modified, by changing the beginning date from 1 June 2001 to 22 December 2000, and removing the reporting senior (RS)‘s section I comment: “This report was drafted and resubmitted to replace a previously submitted report lost in the administrative mailing process.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 August 2003. In...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05673-08
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report for 16 April to 31 December 2004 by removing from section I (reporting senior (RS)’s “Directed and Additional Comments”) “Good potential for growth in a billet allowing for mentorship from senior SNCOs [staff noncommissioned officers].” and from section K.4 (reviewing officer (RO)’s comments) “-Produces good results when given detailed guidance and close, direct supervison [sic].”...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09822-10
The PERB took this action because Petitioner “submitted compelling evidence to indicate that the RO’s evaluation may have been biased and possibly influenced by factors other than the petitioner’s performance.” The PERB denied Petitioner’s request to remove the entire report, because it found the RS had provided him performance counseling, the RS's marks and comments did not indicate any bias or unfairness, and Petitioner had “failed to sufficiently establish his claim that the RS’ part of...