DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 6116-09
30 July 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 that the fitness report for 14 June to 3 August
2004 be modified by deleting, from section I (reporting senior
(RS} “Directed and Additional Comments”), “Directed Comment:
A.3.b. MRO [Marine reported on] lack of atterntion/oversight.”
and from section K.4 (reviewing officer (RO) comments), “This
evaluation is late due to an oversight by the MRO to submit a
grade change fitrep [fitness report] even after prompting by the
RS.”"; raising the mark in section K.3 (RO “Comparative
Assessment”) from the fifth best of eight possible marks to the
fourth best; and changing the mark in section A, item 7
(“Recommended for Promotion”) from 7.c ("N/A [not applicable] ”)
to 7.a (“Yes”). 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. Finally, you impliedly
requested removing your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year
(FY) 2009 Chief Warrant Officer 3 (CWO3) Selection Board.
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 30 May 2005 by removing, from
section I, “he is maturing into his role as a CWO [chief warrant
officer].” and “requires limited supervision” and removing, from
section K.4, “with minimal supervision.”; and modifying section
K of the report for 1 June to 1 September 2005 by removing, from
section K.4, “Continues to grow into the responsibilities of a
Warrant Officer.”
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 30 July 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 (HQMC) Performance
Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 3 June 2009, and the
advisory opinion furnished by HOMC dated 15 July 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 probable material error or injustice.
In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the
comments contained in the report of the PERB. Concerning your
request to raise the section K.3 mark in the report for 14 June
to 3 August 2004, the Board found the RO’s having marked you one
block higher in the immediately preceding and following reports.
did not invalidate the mark in question. Specifically regarding
the contested report for 15 November 2004 to 30 May 2005, the
Board felt that the favorable matters cited in section C
(“Billet Accomplishments”) did not have to be addressed further
elsewhere in the report. The Board was unable to find the mark
in section K.3 of the report for 1 June to 1 September 2005
Should have been higher. Finally, the Board concurred with the
advisory opinion in concluding your selection by the FY 2009
CWO3 Selection Board would have been definitely unlikely, even
if your record had been corrected in accordance with the CMC
action. 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,
W. DEAN PREIFRER
Executive Dirddto
Enclosure
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 | CY2008 | 10175-08
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. Regarding the recommendation, in paragraphs 4.b.ii and 5 of the JAM5 advisory opinion, to amend the commanding officer’s/RO’s letter of 4 May 2006 (among the ericlosures to the HQMC routing sheet dated 10 October 2006) by removing the words “for his civilian conviction,” the Board noted that...
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 | CY2006 | 06678-06
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O370 -5100BJGDocket No: 6678-0617 November 2005This 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 removing the fitness reports for 1 June 2004 to 9 May 2005 and 9 May to 30 June 2005, as well as your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.It...
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 | CY2009 | 09583-09
You requested modifying the fitness report for 8 August 2005 to 31 May 2006 by removing the entire section K (reviewing officer’s (RO’s) marks and comments). 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03374-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 June 2010. 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 warranting removal of your failure of selection by the FY 2010 Captain Selection Board. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03854-07
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 24 April 2007, 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06373-06
Specifically concerning the contested section K of the fitness report for 2 September 2000 to 5 March 2001, the Board found the mark in section K.3, the second lowest of eight possible marks, did not require marking section K.2 (“Evaluation”) “Do Not Concur [with reporting senior].” The Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion from MMOA-4 in concluding your selection by the FY 2007 Major Selection Board would have been definitely unlikely, even if the correction directed by...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07860-08
It is further noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the report by removing, from section I (reporting senior (RS) “Directed and Additional Comments”) “DIRECTED COMMENT -—- SECT A, ITEM 7b: I recommend that the MRO [Marine reported on] not be promoted with contemporaries.” And completely removing section K (reviewing officer (RO) marks and comments). A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session,...