Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02897-09
Original file (02897-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DCG 20370-5100

 

JSR

Docket No: 2897-09
21 May 2009

 

Dear Ea...

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. You requested completely
removing the fitness report for 2 June 2007 to 6 June 2008.

It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has
directed modifying the contested report by removing, from
section K.4 (reviewing officer’s comments), “His skills as a
leader continue to develop; objective evaluation of his
subordinates needs continued work and will improve with time and
experience.”

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 21 May 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

undated report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance
Evaluation Review Board (PERB), 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.
Accordingly, your application for relief beyond that effected by
CMC 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,

\DQead

W. DEAN PFEDSF
Executive D r

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 09222-09

    Original file (09222-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the report for 27 February to 21 April 2008 as you requested, 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, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. ...

  • 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 | 08245-09

    Original file (08245-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (reporting senior’s_ “Directed and Additional Comments”), “[fYou have] matured professionally over the last year and with continued experience will continue to improve.” You further requested modifying the report for 1 August to 30 November 2001 by removing, from section K.4 (reviewing officer's comments), “-Demonstrated definite desire to improve professionally” and “-Will continue to improve professionally with added logistical experience.” It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08575-09

    Original file (08575-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    29 March to 31 July 2001: “-With continued growth and development will do extremely well.” 2. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed the requested modification of the report for 1 February to 24 May 2002; and directed that the report for 25 May to 19 December 2002 be modified by removing both the language whose removal you expressly requested and the following immediately preceding language, to which you did not expressly object: “Gaining a grasp on his role...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 12302-08

    Original file (12302-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested completely removing the fitness reports for 25 July 2003 to 4 January 2004 (extended from 31. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report ending 4 January 2004 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “MRO [Marine reported on] continues to seek self-improvement and is developing into a well rounded administrator”; removing, from section K.4 (reviewing officer (RO)’s comments),...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09264-09

    Original file (09264-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Tt is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report by removing, from section K.4 (reviewing officer's marks and comments), “With continued effort MRO [Marine reported on] should be considered for promotion with peers.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12153-09

    Original file (12153-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 February 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 | CY2009 | 08554-09

    Original file (08554-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board further concurred with the advisory opinion in = concluding your selection by the FY 2010 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board would have been definitely unlikely, even if your record had not included the fitness report CMC has directed removing. request, a Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report for i July 2005 to 21 June 2006, you may submit the RS’s letter and the RO’s endorsement to future selection boards. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09462-09

    Original file (09462-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By your e-mail dated 24 September 2009, you accepted the CMC actions regarding the reports for 17 March to 25 May 2001 and 8 December 2001 to 12 February 2002. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 2009. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted wags insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or...