Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08834-08
Original file (08834-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

JSR
Docket No: 8834-08
14 November 2008

 

 

Dear Staff Sergeant

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 removing the fitness reports for 26 March to 21
October 2002 and 24 October 2002 to 22 September 2003.
Tt is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has

directed removing the contested report for 24 October 2002 to 22
September 2003.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 14 November 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 (HQMC) Performance
Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 11 September 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 regarding the remaining contested fitness
report. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred
with the comments contained in the report of the PERB.

Accordingly, your application for relief beyond that effected by
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,

\ Sy nn

W. DEAN PFEIL
Executive Di Co

 

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09555-09

    Original file (09555-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the contested fitness report for 25 November 2002 to 29 May 2003. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 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 | 10450-08

    Original file (10450-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested removing the fitness reports for 19 November 2002 to 1 August 2003 and 2 August to 31 December 2003. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report for 2 August to 31 December 2003 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “MRO [Marine reported on] is beginning to improve as a career planner through assistance by senior SNCOs [staff noncommissioned officers] in the battalion. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09341-08

    Original file (09341-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant: of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested reports for 17 August 2001 to 16 January 2002 and 17 January to 17 June 2002 by changing the entry in section A, item 8.a, from “xX” (required to fire pistol but did not fire) to “N” (not required to qualify with pistol); and the report for 15 May to 31 December 2003 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “one weakness [you have] made good improvement...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08841-08

    Original file (08841-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 December 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 | 07415-08

    Original file (07415-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 October 2009. In addition, the Board considered the three reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 30 July and 20 October 2008 and 3 June 2009, copies of which are attached. 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 | 8556-07

    Original file (8556-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 October 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, and your prior case file. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08556-07

    Original file (08556-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 October 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, and your prior case file. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08393-06

    Original file (08393-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 29 August 2006, a copy of which is attached. In regard to the report covering the period 20020707 to 20030302 (TDi, the petitioner contends the report is inaccurate based on the reviewing officers non-concurrence with the reporting senior’s attribute markings. The Board concluded that Subj}: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02684-09

    Original file (02684-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the contested fitness report. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 2009. 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 | 04306-07

    Original file (04306-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed correcting the contested fitness report by changing the entry in item 17.a (“Commendatory”) from “No” to “Yes.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 July 2008. The Board agreed with the advisory opinion from MMOA-4 in concluding the correction of item 17.a of the fitness report at issue would not have appreciably enhanced...