DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 00839-09
19 March 2009
This is in reference to your application dated 7 October 2008
with enclosure, seeking reconsideration of your previous
application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the
provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.
Your latest previous case, docket number 5661-08, in which your
other previous cases, docket numbers 10160-06 and 3653-07, were
considered, was denied on 2 July 2008.
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 occasion he”;
removing, from the reporting senior (RS)‘s addendum page,
“Sect [ion] D, la. (Con’t) knowingly forced a recruit who had
recently received oral surgery to sound off until the recruit’s
mouth began to bleed. The recruit had to subsequently return to
dental to have sutures re-sewn in his mouth. MRO was counseled
by the Company Commander for this violation and was relieved of
his duties.” and removing, from section I (RS’s “Directed and
Additional Comments”), “and relieved of his duties for the third
violation.”
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, and the Board’s files on your prior
cases. In addition, the Board considered the report of the
Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board
(PERB), dated 22 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.
The Board was unable to find you were never told you did not
have the ability to perform your duties without supervision, nor
could it find you had that ability. The Board was likewise
unable to find you never undermined the authority of your senior
drill instructors. The Board could not find you were never told
you did not have the ability to work well with your fellow drill
instructors. The Board was not persuaded that the contested
fitness report was used as a counseling tool. The Board was
unable to find you had a personality conflict with your first
sergeant, but observed a subordinate has an obligation to get
along with superiors. Finally, the Board could not accept your
unsubstantiated assertion that the RS told you the service
record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) counseling
entry dated 1 March 2006, whose removal was directed by the
Board in your previous case, docket number 3653-07, “was his
sole basis for giving [you] an adverse [fitness] report.”
In view of the above, your application for relief beyond or
other than that effected by CMC has again 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,
W. DEAN P ER
Executive ector
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05661-08
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, and the Board’s files on your prior cases. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10160-06
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 | CY2006 | 06678-06
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 | CY2009 | 07624-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 19 February 2010. The Board found the removal of that entry from your record did not completely invalidate the contested fitness report, which has been modified by removing all reference to the entry. In this regard, the report as it now appears in your Official Military Personnel File properly reflects all the corrections directed by the report of the PERB dated 22...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08909-02
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested fitness report to delete references to matters that occurred before the reporting period. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 8 October 2002, a copy of which is attached. Chairperson, Performance Evaluation Review Board Personnel Management Division Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department By direction of the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Wed Nov 29 14_53_31 CST 2000
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 September 1999. In addition, the Board 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 warranting restoration of your drill instructor military occupational specialty (MOS) or your special duty assignment (SDA) pay. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 04790-03
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PEW), dated 2 June 2003, a copy of which is attached. (6), concerning section A, item 8b (physical fitness test (PFT)) of the fitness report form, says "Use code 'NMED' [not medically qualified] if the MRO warine reported on] is unable to take or pass the PFT because of a physical (medical) condition." The "NMED" entry in Item 8b of the fitness report, whi.ch is further...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 04433-99
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has removed your adverse fitness report for 17 October to 9 November 1998. 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 warranting restoration of your drill instructor military occupational specialty (MOS) or your special duty assignment (SDA) pay. The memorandum will...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07860-08
It is further noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the report by removing, from section I (reporting senior (RS) “Directed and Additional Comments”) “DIRECTED COMMENT -—- SECT A, ITEM 7b: I recommend that the MRO [Marine reported on] not be promoted with contemporaries.” And completely removing section K (reviewing officer (RO) marks and comments). A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03925-06
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:3925-067 September 2006Dear SergeantThis 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 reports for 21 May 2002 to 14 April 2003 and 31 May 2003 to 19 March 2004 be modified by deleting from section I (“Directed and Additional Comments”)...