DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 3192-09
21 May 2009
Dear’
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 1 June
2005 to 31 March 2006. It is noted that the Commandant of the
Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the report by marking
section A, item 6.a (“Commendatory”) and entering, in section I
(reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”),
“Directed Comments: SECT A, Item 6a: MRO [Marine reported on]
received the Air Medal (Strike Flight Numeral 8) for combat
operations flown in Iraq (401.9 hours/216 sorties/8.6 Strike
Flight Numerals) .”
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
reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) Performance
Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 18 March and 2 April 2009,
copies of which are 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 reports of the
PERB.
The Board was unable to find that neither the reporting senior
nor the reviewing officer (RO) provided you initial guidance or
goals for the reporting period, nor could it find they never met
with you during or after the period to establish any kind of
guidance. The Board was likewise unable to find that you were
not provided a signed copy of the contested fitness report, or
that the RO appointed the squadron executive officer to complete
the fitness report at issue. The Board found nothing adverse
about the RO comment, in section K.4 of the report, that “[You
are] a new Aircraft Commander who is continuing to mature.”
Finally, the Board noted that your Navy and Marine Corps
Commendation Medal, awarded before the reporting period on 11
April 2005, was properly not mentioned in the report in
question.
In view of the above, 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,
\s
W. DEAN PFET}
Executive Di
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09823-10
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the contested reports for 11 March to 15 July 2009 and 1 August to 30 September 2009; and modifying the report for 1 October 2008 to 10 March 2009 by removing the mark in section A, item 6.c (“Disciplinary Action”) and removing, from the third sighting officer’s comments, “SNM [Subject named Marine] has been the subject of numerous Human Factor Boards and Stan [standardization] Boards; all recommendations from...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06600-02
consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Finally, as they did not find the RO comments to be adverse, they found no requirement that they be referred any event, they noted that the applicable fitness report order, Marine Corps Order P did not expressly prohibit RO (as opposed to reporting senior) comments that reflect praise. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 12302-08
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 | CY2010 | 01480-10
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 5 February 2010, a copy of which is attached, and your letter dated 25 March 2010 with enclosures. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10350-08
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 | CY2009 | 06116-09
You also requested completely removing the fitness report for 15 November 2004 to 30 May 2005 and modifying the report for 1 June to l September 2005 by removing the entire section K (RO marks and comments) or, if that modification is denied, raising the mark in section K.3. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing all the contested comments from sections I and K.4 of the report for 14 June to 3 August 2004; modifying the report for 15 November 2004 to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06619-02
The Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB in finding that the contested section K (reviewing officer (RO) marks and comments) of the fitness report for 1 June 2000 to 31 May 2001 should stand. 1 8 20~ MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL USMC Ref: (a) (b) LtCo MC0 's DD Form...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02442-08
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested fitness report by removing the following from section K.4 (reviewing officer (RO) comments): “-Ranks three of three Sgt’s [sergeants] presently assigned to Contracts.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 May 2008. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05673-08
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report for 16 April to 31 December 2004 by removing from section I (reporting senior (RS)’s “Directed and Additional Comments”) “Good potential for growth in a billet allowing for mentorship from senior SNCOs [staff noncommissioned officers].” and from section K.4 (reviewing officer (RO)’s comments) “-Produces good results when given detailed guidance and close, direct supervison [sic].”...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09297-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 September 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. The Board was likewise unable to find the RS did not, at the beginning of the reporting period, give you a billet description or convey your...