Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08841-08
Original file (08841-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 ,
BJG
Docket No: 8841-08
19 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.

It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has
directed modifying the contested fitness report for

3 October 2002 to 31 May 2003 by removing the entire 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 18 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.

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.
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,

 

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12153-09

    Original file (12153-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 February 2010. 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 | 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 | 09922-08

    Original file (09922-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 27 January to 14 June 2007 by removing, from section K.4 (reviewing officer’s comments), “Given a little more experience, I’m confident [you] will exceed all standards for quality results on the toughest of tasks.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2008. In this connection,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10785-08

    Original file (10785-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    [physical fitness test] is removing, from section I “Directed and Additional Comments”), “- the semi-annual PFT of concern as”; Section A, Item 5.a Fitness report rendered adverse as a function of assigament to Body Composition Program [BCP] [Marine Corps Or (MCO P6100.12) .” Item 7.b. Documentany 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. ...

  • 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 | CY2009 | 12935-09

    Original file (12935-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It ig noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report for 17 July 2007 to 31 May 2008 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “Able to complete tasks with supervision and or assistance.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 February 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07739-08

    Original file (07739-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You also initially requested modifying the reports for 13 October 1998 to 23 April 1999 and 1 January to 15 June 2007, but you telephonically indicated on 18 July 2008 that you were satisfied with complete removal of these reports, which has been directed by the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC). A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 October 2008. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05673-08

    Original file (05673-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2014 | NR5184 14

    Original file (NR5184 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report for 1 July to 12 December 2008 by changing the date in section A, item 3.b (beginning date) from *20080701" to “20081002” {and filing in your record an administrative filler for 1 July to 1 October 2008} and modifying the report for 13 December 2008 to 19 May 2009 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed ana Additional Comments”), all but the first sentence and in section K...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01749-08

    Original file (01749-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...