DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BIG
Docket No: 10350-08
4 March 2008
1 April 2005 to 6) January 2006. It is noted that the Commandant
(CMC) has directed modifying the report by
removing, from section I (reporting senior (RS)’s “Directed and
Additional Comments”), “Recently he was given a Page 11 on his
incompetence due to his lack of knowledge in his MOS [military
occupational specialty] and weak leadership skills.” and
removing, from your rebuttal dated 17 January 2006, “On January
9, 2006 I received a page 11 for the mistakes that I’ve [sic] in
the past regarding my MOS.”
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 26| February 2009. 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 23 October 2008, a copy of which is
attached. The Boa
17 November 2008 w
After careful and
record, the Board
insufficient to es
error or injustice.
concurred with the
rd also considered your rebuttal letter dated
ith enclosure.
conscientious consideration of the entire
found that the evidence submitted was
tablish the existence of probable material
In this connection, the Board substantially
comments contained in the report of the PERB.
The Board was unable to find your billet description was not
established until
Board was likewis
adverse marks of “A” the reporting senior
three months into the reporting period. The
unable to find the justification for the
(RS) assigned in
section D (“Missian Accomplishment”) of the contested fitness
report addressed
atters outside your billet description. The
Board found no indonsistency between section C (“Billet
Accomplishments”) jof the report and the derogatory comments in
section I. The Board could not find the reviewing officer (RO)
lacked sufficient lobservation to evaluate you, noting
observation need not be direct. The Board found no
inconsistency between the adverse mark of “Unsatisfactory” the
RO assigned in section K.3 (RO’s “Comparative Assessment”) and
the section K.4 (
potential to redr
Finally, the suppa
Sergeant H--- did
more favorable fit
observation.
In view of the abd
effected by CMC h
members of the pa
1
O's comments) comment that you have “the
ss [your] poor performance and to succeed.”
rting statement you provided from First
not persuade the Board that you deserved a
ness report or that the RO lacked sufficient
ve, your application for relief beyond that
s been denied. The names and votes of the
el will be furnished upon request.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable act
ion cannot be taken. You are entitled to have
the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and
material evidence
the Board. In thi
a presumption of 4
or other matter not previously considered by
s regard, it is important to keep in mind that
egularity 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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02424-08
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. The Board found the fitness report for 1 January to 21 May 2007 should stand, though it disagreed with the PERB position that the removal of the report for 3 November to 31 December 2006 nullified your objection to not having been counseled before your mark in section G.2 (“Decision Making...
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 | CY2006 | 06678-06
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O370 -5100BJGDocket No: 6678-0617 November 2005This 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 1 June 2004 to 9 May 2005 and 9 May to 30 June 2005, as well as your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.It...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07860-08
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,...
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 | CY2005 | 10223-05
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 | CY2002 | 06619-02
The Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB in finding that the contested section K (reviewing officer (RO) marks and comments) of the fitness report for 1 June 2000 to 31 May 2001 should stand. 1 8 20~ MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL USMC Ref: (a) (b) LtCo MC0 's DD Form...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8716 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 September 2014. 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 | CY2010 | 09297-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 September 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. The Board was likewise unable to find the RS did not, at the beginning of the reporting period, give you a billet description or convey your...