DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
_ Docket No: 9341-08
4 December 2008
This igs 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 17 August 2001 to
16 January 2002, 17 January to 17 June 2002, 15 May to 31
December 2003 and 25 September to 31 December 2004.
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 on is
[your] general leadership abilities as a Staff NCO
[noncommissioned officer]” and from section K.4 (reviewing
officer’s comments) “Bearing good, and improving.”
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
the report of the HQMC: Performance Evaluation Review Board
(PERB) dated 24 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,
\oWrang
W. DEAN PFEIL
Executive Direct
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10450-08
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 | 12302-08
You requested completely removing the fitness reports for 25 July 2003 to 4 January 2004 (extended from 31. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report ending 4 January 2004 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “MRO [Marine reported on] continues to seek self-improvement and is developing into a well rounded administrator”; removing, from section K.4 (reviewing officer (RO)’s comments),...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09462-09
By your e-mail dated 24 September 2009, you accepted the CMC actions regarding the reports for 17 March to 25 May 2001 and 8 December 2001 to 12 February 2002. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 2009. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted wags insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06672-10
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report for 18 December 2000 to 31 December 2001 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “In the past, MRO [Marine reported on] has had a problem maintaining bearing in stressful situations. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00955-00
The Board's opinion, 4. vote, is that Report A should remain a part of Captain official military record. Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) for removal of the Directed by the Commandant of the Marine Corps fitness report of 980117 to 980904. failures of selection. Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) for removal of the Captain record and SMC Major he successfully petitioned the Duty fitness report of 940201 to 940731. requests removal of his failures of selection.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00174-09
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 6 January 2009, a copy of which is attached, and your letter dated 3 February 2009 with enclosures. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
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 | 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 | 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 | CY2009 | 08573-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 October 2009. Board. 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.