DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 12035-08
12 February 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.
You requested, in effect, that the fitness report for 1 January
to 5 July 2008 be modified, in accordance with the reporting
senior (RS)'s letter dated 20 October 2008, by raising the mark
in section D.1 (“Performance”) from “E" (third best of seven
possible marks) to “F” (second best) and section E.2
(“Effectiveness under Stress”) from “D” (fourth best) to “E,”
and entering, in the section D justification, the supporting
comments proposed in the RS's letter.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 12 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 9 December 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.
The Board noted that while the marks the RS assigned you in the
contested report were identical to those he had assigned you in
the immediately preceding report, for 18 July to 31 December
2007, his narrative was different. The Board recognized that
the RS’s letter was submitted less than four months after the
reporting period, however, it was unable to find the proposed
higher marks were more accurate or fair. 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.
Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report in
question, you may submit the RS’s letter to future selection
boards.
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,
FoeonW. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11630-08
You requested that the fitness report for 10 January to 29 July 2006 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 16 November 2006 and the reviewing officer’s (RO’s) undated endorsement, by raising the mark in Section G.1 (“Professional Military Education”) from *c” (fifth best of seven possible marks) to “E” (third best) and section G.3 (“Judgment”) from “B” (sixth best) to *c.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02153-10
: A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 April 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 | CY2010 | 02180-10
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. Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report in question, you may submit the RS's letter and the RO’s endorsement to future selection boards. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01527-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 July 2008. 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 | 02890-09
(*“Decision Making Ability”) from “D"” to *E.” : A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval ' Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 October 2009. In addition, the Board considered the reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 18 March and 10 August 2009, copies of which are attached, your letter of 27 March 2009 and the RS’s letter of the same date. Consequently, when applying for a correction...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 08548 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 October 2012. 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 | 08062-10
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 names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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 | 08821-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 December 2008. 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 | 12297-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 February 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 | CY2008 | 10012-08
You requested, in effect, that the fitness report for 2 July to 30 September 2007 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letters dated 12 June and 8 September 2008 and the reviewing officer's (RO’s) letter dated 15 June 2008, by raising the mark in section D.2 (“Proficiency”) from “D” (fourth best of seven possible marks) to “E” (third best) and section E.2 (‘Effectiveness under Stress”) from “C” (fifth best) to “D.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of...