DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON BC 20370-5100
BUG
Docket No: 7624-09
22 February 2010
This is in reference to your letter dated 4 July 2009 with
- enclosure, seeking reconsideration of your previous application
for correction of’ your naval record pursuant to the provisions
of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552. Your
latest previous case, docket number 839-09, in which your other
previous cases, docket numbers 10160-06, 3653-07 and 5661-08,
were considered, was denied on 19 March 2009.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case
on 19 February 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, and the Board’s files on your prior cases. In
addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters
Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated
16 November 2009, a copy of which is attached. The Board also
considered your rebuttal letter dated 21 November 2006 (sic)
with enclosure.
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 that part of the reason the
page 11 entry was removed was that the commander who submitted
it later wished it withdrawn. The Board found the removal of
that entry from your record did not completely invalidate the
contested fitness report, which has been modified by removing
all reference to the entry. In this regard, the report as it
now appears in your Official Military Personnel File properly
reflects all the corrections directed by the report of the PERB
dated 22 January 2009. Finally, the Board found the observed
fitness report at issue did serve to explain your transfer from
duty as a drill instructor to duty as a routing chief. In view
of the above, the Board again voted to deny relief. 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,
ody] -
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Dire
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08633-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 3 September 2009. Further, the Board noted that the modification of this report directed by PERB in your previous case was implemented on 7 August 2007, before the FY 2009 Lieutenant Colonel. 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 | CY2010 | 09308-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 16 September 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your current application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board's files on your prior cases (docket numbers 07213-07 and 08633-09), your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12153-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 February 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 | CY2009 | 09932-09
These requests were denied on 2 September 2004. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion from the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Career Management Team (CMT), dated 24 July 2008 with enclosures, and the reports of the HQMC Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 18 September 2008 and 8 September 2009, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11386-09
You requested completely removing the fitness report for 31 March to 5 October 2007. and “completed most tasks when supervised and.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 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 | CY2009 | 12147-09
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 16 November 2009, a copy of which is attached. The petitioner argues that this fitness report should be removed from his Official Military Personnei File (OMPF) because the Reporting Senior marks are lower than those of his previous report from the same Reporting Senior, and that he was not counseled about the reduced marks. Each report is an evaluation of the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06961-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 2 June 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your current application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board's file en your prior case, 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06266-10
Your previous request, docket number 12841-09, again seeking to remove the original fitness report and replace it with the revised report, or just remove the original report, and remove your failures of selection to lieutenant colonel, which then included failures of selection by the FY 2005 and 2006 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards, was administratively closed on 25 May 2010. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09555-09
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the contested fitness report for 25 November 2002 to 29 May 2003. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 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 | CY2009 | 00839-09
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 10 January to 28 February 2006 by restoring the mark in section A, item 6.b (“Derogatory Material”) whose removal CMC had directed in your previous case, docket number 5661-08; removing, from the section D.1 (“Performance”) justification, “MRO [Marine reported on] was relieved of duties for violating Depot Order P1510.30L on three separate occasions.” and “because on another...