AS
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 10444-08
29 January 2009
THis 18 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.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 29 January 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
advisory opinion from Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) dated 9
September 2008 and the report of the HOMC Performance Evaluation
Review Board, dated 27 October 2008, copies of which are
attached. The Board also considered your letter of 12 November
2008 with enclosure.
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 advisory opinion
and the report of the PERB, except to note your letter of 12
November 2008 did provide an earlier version, dated 20 September
2006, of the contested fitness report dated 22 September 2006,
showing a mark of “Cc” (fifth best of seven possible) in section
D.2 (“Proficiency”), whereas. the report of record marked you “D”
(fourth best); “C” in section F.3 (“Setting the Example”),
whereas the report of record marked you “B” (sixth best); and
“B” in section G.3 (“Judgment”), whereas the report of record
marked you “A” (lowest). The Board found that the report of
record superseded the previous version. 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.
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,
\Sxoskee lo
WwW. sed
Executive Divectbor
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07740-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 October 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 | CY2009 | 09809-09
You further requested that these reports, as well as the report for 31 October 2007 to 30 June 2008, be modified by adding, to section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “MRO [Marine reported on] meets Physical Evaluation criteria in MCO [Marine Corps Order] 6100.12, and is within standards.” Finally, you requested removing your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year 2010 Active Reserve Colonel Selection Board, and granting you special selection board consideration...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03202-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 May 2011. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09249-09
The Board, consisting of Messrs. Ivins, Vogt and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 29 October 2009, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. ‘Enclosure (2), the report of the PERB, reflects that Petitioner's request concerning the report for 31 May to 9 September 2006 was granted, but comments to the effect that Petitioner’s request to modify the report for 5...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08554-09
The Board further concurred with the advisory opinion in = concluding your selection by the FY 2010 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board would have been definitely unlikely, even if your record had not included the fitness report CMC has directed removing. request, a Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report for i July 2005 to 21 June 2006, you may submit the RS’s letter and the RO’s endorsement to future selection boards. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11693-10
You also requested that the service record page 11 counseling entry dated 21 November 2008 be modified by deleting the following: Your demonstrated lack of maturity, judgment and decision making abilities, specifically your inappropriate sexual relationship with a CPL [corporal] [pay grade E=-4}(fthen a PFC [private first class) [pay grade E-2] when it started). A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00587-09
™ A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 April 2009. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (PERS-~- 311) dated 26 February 2009, a copy of which is 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 | CY2008 | 02565-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 May 2008. In this regard, the Board noted that the RO comments in section K.4 of these reports are not identical, and that you had no supporting letter from the RO concerning the period now in question, as you did for the preceding period. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08949-08
The Board, consisting of Ms. Nofziger and Messrs. Boyd and Washington, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 14 November 2008, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. c. In enclosure (3), the HQMC office with cognizance over the subject matter concerned commented to the effect that the PERB action warranted removing Petitioner’s failure of selection by the FY 2009...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09583-09
You requested modifying the fitness report for 8 August 2005 to 31 May 2006 by removing the entire section K (reviewing officer’s (RO’s) marks and comments). 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...