DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 1264-09
9 April 2009
This is in reference to your undated DD Form 149 (“Application
for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title
10, U.S. 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 10 February 2009, a copy of which is
attached, and the DD Form 149 dated 6 March 2009 with
continuation of block 6.
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 not formally counseled
about your leadership, noting that in the justification for the
mark in section F.1 (“Leading Subordinates”) of the contested
fitness report, the reporting senior stated you were “informally
and formally counseled on [your] inability to provide senior
ay
enlisted mentorship to the platoon.” 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,
\i |
W. DEAN PFENF
Executive e xr
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03789-09
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 | 12147-09
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 16 November 2009, a copy of which is attached. The petitioner argues that this fitness report should be removed from his Official Military Personnei File (OMPF) because the Reporting Senior marks are lower than those of his previous report from the same Reporting Senior, and that he was not counseled about the reduced marks. Each report is an evaluation of the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01379-09
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 | CY2009 | 01997-09
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the report by removing from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “Consistent results require supervision.” and from section K.4 (reviewing officer comments), “yet struggles with competing priorities.” 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01226-09
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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03521-09
However, in only 60 days since the end of his last reporting period, I cannot say that he has moved up in his peer ranking.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 June 2009. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 1 April 2009, a copy of which is attached. Removal of the fitness reports for the periods 19990101...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05157-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 December 2009. 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. 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 | 01749-08
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the report ending 31 December 2001 and modifying the report ending 6 July 2004 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), all the material to which you objected: “With guidance”; “Adequately” and “Overall, I rate him 6 of 6 Captains [sic] in the Battalion. [sic].” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11717-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 March 2010. 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 | 03634-07
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-blOOBJGDocket No:3634-0710 May 2007This 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 removing the uncontested fitness report for 1 May to 25 October 2005 by removing section K (reviewing officer’s marks and comments).A...