Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00423-09
Original file (00423-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

BUG
Docket No: 423-09
2 April 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 2 April 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 14 January 2009, 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.
While the reporting senior (RS) did not provide the required
comment in section I (RS’s “Directed.and Additional Comments”)
explaining his submission of an observed report for a period
under 90 days, the Board found the derogatory information
reflected in the contested report supported a conclusion that he
had an adequate basis to submit an observed report. Finally,
the Board found nothing objectionable about the RS’s having

expressed, in the section G.1 (“Professional Military
Education”) justification, his opinion that you “put Marines
under [your] charge in more danger than necessary.” 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,

INoek

W. DEAN PF
Executive e r

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | CY2014 | NR8716 14

    Original file (NR8716 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 September 2014. 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 | 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 | CY2014 | NR5199 14

    Original file (NR5199 14.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 June 2014. Finally, the Board was unable to find the RS made inappropriate comments on your personal life. 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 | 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 | 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 | 10350-08

    Original file (10350-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    concurred with the rd also considered your rebuttal letter dated ith enclosure. The Board could not find the reviewing officer (RO) lacked sufficient lobservation to evaluate you, noting observation need not be direct. 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 | 10800-08

    Original file (10800-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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. 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 | CY2007 | 04966-07

    Original file (04966-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 25 May 2007, a copy of which is attached. In regard to the fitness report covering the period 20050414 to 20051210 (FD), the Board found that per paragraphSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF8007.3 of reference (b), reporting officials may add supplemental material after the facts, and as...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01226-09

    Original file (01226-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested, in effect, that the fitness report for 1 January to 31 March 2008 be modified, in accordance with the reporting Senior's (RS’s) letter dated 13 June 2008 and e-mail dated 1 December 2008, by changing the rifle entry in section A, item 8.a from “N” (not required) to “X” (required did not fire) and adding the following comment in section I (RS’s “Directed and Additional Comments”) to support the entry of “X”: “MRO [Marine reported on] was not afforded the opportunity to attend...