DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR’ CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5160 ,
“ * JSR
a. . Docket No: 6106-09
“e 8 October 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.
You requested, in effect, that the fitness report for 1 June
2007 to 26 June 2008 be modified, in accordance with the
“reporting senior’s letter dated 14 February 2009, by raising the
marks in sections D.2 (“Proficiency”), E.3 (“Initiative”), F.1
(“Leading Subordinates”), F.4 (*Ensuring Well-being of
Subordinates”), G.2 (“Decision Making Ability”) and G.3
(“Judgment”) from “D” (fourth best of seven possible marks) to
“Be” (third best). You also requested removing your failure of
selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Major Selection Board.
It ig noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has
directed the requested modifications of the fitness report: at
issue.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 8 October 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 (HQOMC) Performance
Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 12 May 2609 and the
advisory opinion from HQMC dated 26 May 2009, copies of which
are attached, and your undated letter 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. In this connection, the Board substantially
concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion in
concluding your selection by the FY 2010 Major Selection Board
would have been definitely unlikely, even if your record had
‘xéflected the correctivetaction directed by CMC. Accordingly, |
Your application for further relief has been denied. The names
dnd 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 éntitled 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,
Executive Di
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08554-09
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 | 08538-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 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 | CY2012 | 08548 12
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 | 11681-10
You requested, in effect, that the fitness report for 2 June to 12 August 2009 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 16 April 2010 and the reviewing officer's (RO’s) letter dated 20 April 2010, by raising the marks in sections D.1 (“Performance”), F.1 (“Leading Subordinates”) and F.3 (“Setting the Example”) from “D” (fourth best of seven possible marks) to “E” (third best) and section G.1 (“Professional Military Education”) from "C” (fifth best) fo...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08458-10
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed the requested modification of the report for 26 July 2006 to 28 February 2007. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 August 2010. 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 | 03202-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 May 2011. 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 material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09045-10
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BAN Docket: 9045-10 28 Mar 2011 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records TOR Secretary of the Navy Subj}: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Navy Personnel Command (NPC) memo 1430 PERS 843 of 2 Nov 10 G3) Meno fr) SC
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02226-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 July 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 | CY2010 | 00093-10
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing both contested fitness reports. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 March 2010. 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 | CY2006 | 10218-06
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 reporting senior is to also ensure these comments neither conflict or obscure the remainder Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) of the evaluation. The Board found that the section “I” comments do not conflict with the attribute markings and are in accordance...