Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00178-09
Original file (00178-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 .

JSR
Docket No: 178-09
6 August 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 6 August 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

reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation

Review Board (PERB), dated 6 January and 3 June 2009, copies of
which are attached, and your letter of 15 January 2009 with
enclosures.

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
dated 3 June 2009. The Board was unable to find the contested
Fitness report reflected bias against you on account of the
request mast. The Board did not find the report to be
internally inconsistent, noting that the reviewing officer
‘concurred with the reporting senior (RS)'s assessment. The
Board was unable to find the RS did not take due account of your
accomplishments, nor could it find any of your achievements not
noted expressly were of such significance that they should have
been mentioned. Finally, the Board was unable to find the
occasion of the contested report should have been other than
“CH” (change of reporting senior). 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,

\p |
W. DEAN aN
Bxecutive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10160-06

    Original file (10160-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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,ROBERT D. ZSALMAN Acting Executive DirectorEnclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS3280 RUSSELL ROAD QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERBNOV...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 12297-08

    Original file (12297-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2009 | 00839-09

    Original file (00839-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2010 | 09823-10

    Original file (09823-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the contested reports for 11 March to 15 July 2009 and 1 August to 30 September 2009; and modifying the report for 1 October 2008 to 10 March 2009 by removing the mark in section A, item 6.c (“Disciplinary Action”) and removing, from the third sighting officer’s comments, “SNM [Subject named Marine] has been the subject of numerous Human Factor Boards and Stan [standardization] Boards; all recommendations from...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08535-09

    Original file (08535-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC} has directed modifying the contested fitness report by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s (RS’s) “Directed and Additional Comments”), “[You are] capable of producing bigger and better performance and work.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 October 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03789-09

    Original file (03789-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. £ Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION, IN THE CASE OF .

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01379-09

    Original file (01379-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested completely removing the fitness report for 5 May to 2 September 2008. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 11 February 2009, a copy of which is attached, and your letter dated 4 March 2009. 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 | CY2010 | 00180-10

    Original file (00180-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 09991-08

    Original file (09991-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 February 2009. The Board found nothing objectionable in the reporting senior (RS)'’s use of the word “flippant” in section I (RS’s “Directed and Additional Comments”) of the contested fitness report. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 12035-08

    Original file (12035-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 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...