DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 .
JSR
Docket No: 6125-09
6 August 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 2 March to
30 November 2005 be modified, in accordance with the letter from
the reporting senior (RS) dated 10 January 2009, by raising the
marks in sections D.2 (*Proficiency”) and G.2 (*Decision Making
Ability”) from “Db” (fourth best of seven possible marks) to “E”
(third best). You further requested that the report for 1
December 2005 to 30 June 2006 be modified, in accordance with
the same letter from the RS and the letter dated 22 January 2009
from the reviewing officer (RO), by raising the marks in
sections D.1 (“Performance”), D.2, E.2 (“Effectiveness under
Stress”), and E.3 (“Initiative”) from “Dp” to “E” and sections.
E.1 (*Courage”) and F.1 (“Leading Subordinates”) from “C" (f£ifth .
best) to “D.” oO
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 6 August 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 Performance Evaluation
Review Board (PERB), dated 3 June 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,
- except to note the RS did not retire until 1 July 2009, about
six months after he had submitted his letter. Accordingly, your
application has been denied. The names and votes of the members
of the panel will be furnished upon request.
Although the Board voted not to modify either of the fitness
reports in question, you may submit the letters from the RS and
RO to future selection boards.
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,
\ Qa
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Diggec
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02890-09
(*“Decision Making Ability”) from “D"” to *E.” : A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval ' Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 October 2009. In addition, the Board considered the reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 18 March and 10 August 2009, copies of which are attached, your letter of 27 March 2009 and the RS’s letter of the same date. Consequently, when applying for a correction...
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 | CY2005 | 10223-05
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:10223-0516 April 2007This 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 October 2000 to 31 May 2001 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 3 January 2005, by raising the marks in sections...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02153-10
: A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 April 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 | 02180-10
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. Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report in question, you may submit the RS's letter and the RO’s endorsement to future selection boards. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
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 | 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 | CY2008 | 10012-08
You requested, in effect, that the fitness report for 2 July to 30 September 2007 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letters dated 12 June and 8 September 2008 and the reviewing officer's (RO’s) letter dated 15 June 2008, by raising the mark in section D.2 (“Proficiency”) from “D” (fourth best of seven possible marks) to “E” (third best) and section E.2 (‘Effectiveness under Stress”) from “C” (fifth best) to “D.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11630-08
You requested that the fitness report for 10 January to 29 July 2006 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 16 November 2006 and the reviewing officer’s (RO’s) undated endorsement, by raising the mark in Section G.1 (“Professional Military Education”) from *c” (fifth best of seven possible marks) to “E” (third best) and section G.3 (“Judgment”) from “B” (sixth best) to *c.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11717-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 March 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...