Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01216-09
Original file (01216-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

BIG
Docket No: 1216-09
9 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 9 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 5 February 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 Board did not condone the late submission of the
contested fitness report, it was unable to find this impaired
your ability to respond effectively to the report. The Board
was likewise unable to find you were ill advised as to the
statement you made. 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,

 

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01215-09

    Original file (01215-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 April 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 | 01264-09

    Original file (01264-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 April 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 | 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 | CY2011 | 05700-11

    Original file (05700-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 October 2011. 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 | 08263-09

    Original file (08263-09.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 October 2009. The Board did not condone the late submission of the contested fitness report, but was unable to find this invalidated it. 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 | CY2009 | 03192-09

    Original file (03192-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested completely removing the fitness report for 1 June 2005 to 31 March 2006. In addition, the Board considered the reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 18 March and 2 April 2009, copies of which are 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 | CY2009 | 08239-09

    Original file (08239-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the report for 10 January to 28 February 2006 by removing, from section K.4 (reviewing officer's comments), ‘- Physical fitness improved during the reporting period.” and further directed completely removing the report for 1 March to 24 April 2006. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 October 2009. Consequently, when...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00178-09

    Original file (00178-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval : Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 August 2009. The Board did not find the report to be internally inconsistent, noting that the reviewing officer ‘concurred with the reporting senior (RS)'s assessment. 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 | CY2012 | 06644 12

    Original file (06644 12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SNM [Subject Named Marine] received a Letter of Appreciation and Certificate of Appreciation during the reporting period.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 October 2012. The Board also considered the reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 6 April and 19 June 2012, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...

  • 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 .