Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08249-09
Original file (08249-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX ;
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

JSR
Docket No: 8249-09
1 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.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your ©
application on 1 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 Performance Evaluation

Review Board (PERB), dated 30 July 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 you were not marked “not observed" in section E.2
(“Effectiveness Under Stress”) of the contested fitness report
for 2 August 2007 to 30 April 2008. Accordingly, your
application 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,

lo Dose!

W. DEAN PFEEF
Executive Dinec

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09823-10

    Original file (09823-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the contested reports for 11 March to 15 July 2009 and 1 August to 30 September 2009; and modifying the report for 1 October 2008 to 10 March 2009 by removing the mark in section A, item 6.c (“Disciplinary Action”) and removing, from the third sighting officer’s comments, “SNM [Subject named Marine] has been the subject of numerous Human Factor Boards and Stan [standardization] Boards; all recommendations from...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7159 13

    Original file (NR7159 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report for 1 October 2008 to 30 September 2009 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “upon completion of billet level MOS [Military Occupational Specialty] school”. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 October 2013. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09809-09

    Original file (09809-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You further requested that these reports, as well as the report for 31 October 2007 to 30 June 2008, be modified by adding, to section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “MRO [Marine reported on] meets Physical Evaluation criteria in MCO [Marine Corps Order] 6100.12, and is within standards.” Finally, you requested removing your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year 2010 Active Reserve Colonel Selection Board, and granting you special selection board consideration...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11717-09

    Original file (11717-09.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 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07847-09

    Original file (07847-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 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. ‘aw After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08245-09

    Original file (08245-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (reporting senior’s_ “Directed and Additional Comments”), “[fYou have] matured professionally over the last year and with continued experience will continue to improve.” You further requested modifying the report for 1 August to 30 November 2001 by removing, from section K.4 (reviewing officer's comments), “-Demonstrated definite desire to improve professionally” and “-Will continue to improve professionally with added logistical experience.” It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08258-09

    Original file (08258-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 October 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ef 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 -faval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07587-09

    Original file (07587-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested completely removing the fitness reports for 4 February to 15 May 2006, 3 April to 2 July 2007,and 3 July to 13 October 2007. You further requested, if the report for 4) February to 15 May 2006 is not completely removed, that it be modified by removing, from section K.4 (reviewing officer's comments), “from an external perspective.” | Tt is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 3 July to 13 October 2007 by...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08268-09

    Original file (08268-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the report for 10 July to 2 December 1999 by removing, from section K.4 (reviewing officer's comments) , “given limited tasks and direct guidance.” and “but requires. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official: naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07415-08

    Original file (07415-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 October 2009. In addition, the Board considered the three reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 30 July and 20 October 2008 and 3 June 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 of probable material error or injustice.