Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08821-08
Original file (08821-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

JSR
Docket No: 8821-08
4 December 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, in effect, that the fitness reports for 7 August
2006 to 31 May 2007 and 1 June 2007 to 23 May 2008 be modified,
in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS‘’s) letter dated 25
July 2008, by raising the marks in sections D.1 (“Performance”),
E.2 (‘Effectiveness under Stress”), F.4 (“Ensuring Well-being of
Subordinates”) and G.2 (“Decision Making Ability”) from “D”
(fourth best of seven possible marks) to “E” (third best).

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 4 December 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 12 September 2008, a copy of which is
attached, and your letter of 10 November 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.
While the Board recognized the RS’s letter was submitted only
two months after he had assigned the original marks at issue on
20 May 2008, the Board was unable to find the proposed higher
marks were more accurate or fair. 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.

Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness reports in
question, you may submit the RS’s letter to future selection

boards.

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,

\sQung

W. DEAN PFEQRP
Executive Dik¢ct

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01527-08

    Original file (01527-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 July 2008. 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 of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01201-08

    Original file (01201-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 November 2008. 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 of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02890-09

    Original file (02890-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (*“Decision Making Ability”) from “D"” to *E.” : A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval ' Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 October 2009. In addition, the Board considered the reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 18 March and 10 August 2009, copies of which are attached, your letter of 27 March 2009 and the RS’s letter of the same date. Consequently, when applying for a correction...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 12035-08

    Original file (12035-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 February 2009. 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 of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00986-08

    Original file (00986-08.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Enclosure1610MMER/PERMEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDSSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFOMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OFRef: (a)Form 149 of 15 Jun 07(b) MC&PTflQ.7F1. In Support of his appeal, he has submitted a letter from the RS requesting the marks be changed.3. Section C of the report clearly states that MRO closed 170 trouble tickets, thus indicating that the RS did take thisSubj: MARINE CORPS...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10809-08

    Original file (10809-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested, in effect, that the fitness report for 1 July 2007 to 31 May 2008 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 28 August 2008, by changing the marks in sections F.1 (“leading subordinates”), F.2 (“developing subordinates”) and F.4 (“ensuring well-being of subordinates”) from “H” (not observed) to “D” (fourth best of seven possible marks); raising sections F.3 (“setting the example”) and F.5 (“communication skills”) from "D” to “BE” (third best)...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10012-08

    Original file (10012-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested, in effect, that the fitness report for 2 July to 30 September 2007 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letters dated 12 June and 8 September 2008 and the reviewing officer's (RO’s) letter dated 15 June 2008, by raising the mark in section D.2 (“Proficiency”) from “D” (fourth best of seven possible marks) to “E” (third best) and section E.2 (‘Effectiveness under Stress”) from “C” (fifth best) to “D.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05679-08

    Original file (05679-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested, in effect, that the fitness report for 1 May 2006 to 31 May 2007 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 26 February 2008, by raising the Mark in section D.1 (“Performance”) from “Cc” (fifth best of seven possible marks) to “E” (third best), D.2 (“Proficiency”) from “D” (fourth best) to “E,” E.3 (“Initiative”) from “D” to “E,” F.1 (“Leading Subordinates”) from “C” to “D,” F.2 (“Developing Subordinates”) from *C” to “E,” F.5...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 10223-05

    Original file (10223-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:10223-0516 April 2007This 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, in effect, that the fitness report for 1 October 2000 to 31 May 2001 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 3 January 2005, by raising the marks in sections...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09828-07

    Original file (09828-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested, in effect, that the fitness reports for 15 April to 31 December 2005 and 1 January to 9 June 2006 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) undated letter, by changing the marks in sections F.] (“Leading Subordinates”), F.2 (“Developing Subordinates”) and F.4 (“Ensuring Well-being of Subordinates”) from “H” (not observed) to “p” (fourth best of seven possible marks) in the case of the report for 15 April to 31 December 2005, and “EF” (third best) in the...