Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00193-09
Original file (00193-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

JSR
Docket No: 193-09
5 November 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 5 November 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 an
support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes,

regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the

report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOQMC) Performance
Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 8 September 2009, and the
advisory opinion from HQOMC dated 10 September 2009, copies of
which are attached. a

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
ansufficient 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.

Specifically concerning the contested fitness report for 1
August 2005 to 3 January 2006, the Board was unable to find the
reporting officials were biased against you before you were
relieved, or that you were not counseled about what they
expected of you. The Board noted that both contested fitness
reports do address your medical condition and reflect that
condition may have contributed to the substandard performance
reported. The Board found your own reticence about reporting
your medical condition and your commendable desire to serve
contributed to your not having been referred for a command
directed mental health evaluation, on your first deployment,
until after you had been relieved for cause; and your having
been deployed twice, notwithstanding your medical condition and
your having been relieved on your first deployment. Finally,
the two supporting statements at Tab 22 to your counsel’s brief
did not persuade the Board you deserved more favorable
evaluations in either of the contested fitness reports.

Since the Board found no defect in your performance record, it-
_had no basis to recommend removing either of your failures of
. selection by the Fiscal Year 2008 and 2009 Lieutenant..Colonel .
Selection Boards or granting you consideration by a special
selection board.

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,

a
. a
A

“W. DEAN PFEI
Executive Di

Enclosure

Copy to:

i

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04072-00

    Original file (04072-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You again request that this fitness report be removed, and you add a new request for consideration by a special selection board for promotion to lieutenant colonel. petitioner alleges that senior officers, career counselors, and at least one monitor, him of fair consideration for command, promotion, and school selection. record and FYOl 0 and Subsequently, he Senior fitness requests removal of In our opinion, removing the petitioned report would have 3. significantly increased the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10449-08

    Original file (10449-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 | CY1998 | 08224-98

    Original file (08224-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB in finding that no correction of your fitness report record was warranted. 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. Subsequently, he unsuccessfully petitioned the Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) for removal of the fitness report for the period 970125-970731 and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06678-06

    Original file (06678-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2006 | 11009-06

    Original file (11009-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 his advocacy letter, the reviewing officer implies leadership was lacking and that the petitioner’s former Commanding Officer, who was the reporting senior on the petitioner’s prior two fitness reports, was eventually relieved for cause. Therefore, the Board concluded, as the reviewing...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10992-06

    Original file (10992-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370~5 100BJGDocket No:10992-06.26 January 2006This 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.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 1 June 2002 to 10 January 2003 by changing section 3.a (“Occasion”) from “DC” (directed by...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11636-08

    Original file (11636-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 March 2009. 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. 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 | CY2011 | 06758-11

    Original file (06758-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested completely removing the fitness report for 1 June to 30 September 2009. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “, when required” and from section K.4 (reviewing officer’s comments), “- MRO [Marine reported on] attempted to maintain order during a very hectic and high paced deployment.” A three-member panel of the Board for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08633-09

    Original file (08633-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 3 September 2009. Further, the Board noted that the modification of this report directed by PERB in your previous case was implemented on 7 August 2007, before the FY 2009 Lieutenant Colonel. 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 | CY2002 | 06721-00

    Original file (06721-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    t for the period 960914 to 970710 (TR) was Removal of Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive requested. evidenced in the final paragraph of enclosure (6) to reference REPORTING SENIORS HERE WILL BE (a) (i.e., "FITNESS REPORTS. THE FITNESS REPORTS.").