Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05318-09
Original file (05318-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
é ~~.

 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

BUG
Docket No: 5318-09
15 January 2010

 

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 that the fitness report for 1 May to 15 June 2008
be modified to make it “not observed”; and that the report for
16 June to 15 August 2008 be modified to make it observed,
specifically requesting that section A, item 6.a (*Commendatory
Material”) be marked.

Tt is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has
directed the requested modification of the report for 1 May to

15 June 2008.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 14 January 2010. 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 18 May 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. 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,

Tt 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,

\SunBed

W. DEAN PRET
Executive tor

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12296-09

    Original file (12296-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB, except the Board was persuaded that the reporting senior’s portion of the original version of a superseded version of the contested fitness report for 3 October 2007 to 30 September...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09204-08

    Original file (09204-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Tt is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 10 January to 15 May 2007 as you requested. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07740-08

    Original file (07740-08.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. 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 | 12667-09

    Original file (12667-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    .A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 February 2010. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 2 December 2009, a copy of which is 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 | 02867-09

    Original file (02867-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the report by removing the entire section K (reviewing officer’s marks and comments). A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 April 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 | CY2014 | NR8716 14

    Original file (NR8716 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 September 2014. 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 | CY2012 | 08548 12

    Original file (08548 12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 October 2012. 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 | CY2010 | 11428-10

    Original file (11428-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested modifying the fitness report for 1 October 2009 to 28 January 2010 by removing, from section K.4 (reviewing officer's comments), the comment “SNM [subject named Marine] does not possess the mental dexterity required to lead Marines in extremely challenging environments.” In the alternative, you requested completely removing the contested report. CMC further directed removing, from page 2 of your statement dated 20 February 2010, the following: “I do possess the mental...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05313-09

    Original file (05313-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 7 May 2009, a copy of which is attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5132 14

    Original file (NR5132 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Tt is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the second sentence in section I (reporting senior's “Directed and Additional Comments”) of the contested report, which reads “MRO [Marine reported on] is a newly promoted Staff Non Commissioned Officer, who performs well ina difficult and demanding billet, but is best suited for a Food Service position in the Operating Forces. ", by changing the comma after the word “billet” to a period, and changing the...