DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BIG
Docket No: 11636-08
20 March 2009
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.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 19 March 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 25 November 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.
Concerning your assertion that the reporting senior was relieved
of and reassigned to another section about one to two weeks
after your request mast dated 12 May 2008, the Board noted that
he electronically signed the contested fitness report, which
reflected he was your platoon commander, on 8 June 2008. If he
was relieved on a later date, you have offered no information
supporting a conclusion that he was unable to evaluate your
performance fairly and accurately, or that he lacked leadership
skills. 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,
\pDea® |
W. DEAN PFEIF
Executive Direlctor
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00839-09
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 10 January to 28 February 2006 by restoring the mark in section A, item 6.b (“Derogatory Material”) whose removal CMC had directed in your previous case, docket number 5661-08; removing, from the section D.1 (“Performance”) justification, “MRO [Marine reported on] was relieved of duties for violating Depot Order P1510.30L on three separate occasions.” and “because on another...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00193-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted an 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 | 10449-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 January 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. The Board was likewise unable to find the RO’s portion of the contested fitness report should have been “not observed,” noting that an observed...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03390-10
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report by removing, from section C (“Billet Accomplishments”), “below the national average of 24 Marines and an average of 4.0.” and removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “relieved for cause and.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 July 2010. Documentary...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10437-08
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 31 March to 30 September 2002 by deleting, from section K.4 (reviewing officer’s comments), “a non-punitive letter of caution,”. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 27 October 2008, a copy of which is attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00180-10
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report by removing from section I (reporting senior (RS)’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “{You have] the potential to be a well rounded SNCO [staff noncommissioned officer] .” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 April 2010. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated 19 January 2010 with...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02208-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 May 2008. Finally, if you are correct that the reporting senior was relieved because of unspecified “inappropriate behavior with enlisted Marines,” the Board was unable to find this would call into question his ability to render a fair and accurate performance evaluation, noting the reviewing officer concurred with the appraisal he gave you. Consequently, when...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07414-08
This is in naval reco United Sta You requeste May 2006 ar Year (FY) 40 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 JSR Docket No: 7414-08 4 September 2008 reference to your application for correction of your d pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the es Code, section 1552. d removal of the fitness report for 6 April to 31 hd all documentation of your removal from the Fiscal 07 Lieutenant Colonel Promotion List; reinstatement to that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01668-07
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. Per paragraph 2010.5 of reference (b), when the reporting senior is relieved for cause, the reviewing officer is required to take over the evaluation responsibilities. In this case, the Board found that after relieving the reporting senior, the reviewing officer felt he had sufficient...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07130-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 August 2008. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your letter of 22 July 2008 and the HQMC letter of 15 July 2008, 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...