Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08538-09
Original file (08538-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

-JSR
Docket No: 8538-09
7 January 2010

 

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 1 August 2001 to 4
February 2002 be completely removed. You further requested that
the report for 28 January to 25 March 2007 be modified, in
accordance with the letters dated 17 February 2009 from the
reporting senior (RS) and reviewing officer (RO), by raising the
marks in sections D.1 (“Performance”), D.2 (“Proficiency”), E.2
(“Effectiveness under Stress”), E.3 (“Initiative”), F.3
("Setting the Example”), G.2 (“Decision Making Ability”) and G.3
(“Judgment”) from “E” (third best of seven possible marks) to
“@” (best); E.1 (“Courage”) and F.4 (“Ensuring Well-being of
Subordinates”) from °D" (fourth best) to “F” (second best); F.1.
(“Leading Subordinates”) and F.5 (“Communication Skills”) from
“EB” to “FY”; and F.2: (“Developing Subordinates) and G.1
(“Professional Military Education”) from “D” to “E.”

It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has

directed removing the contested report for 1 August 2001 to 4
February 2002.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 7 January 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. In addition, the Board considered the
report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation
Review Board (PERB), dated 10 August 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.
The Board also noted that marks of “F” and “G" require specific
justification. 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.

Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report for 28
January to 25 March 2007, 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,

\ Pua

W. DEAN P
Executive

 
  
 

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08554-09

    Original file (08554-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2010 | 02226-10

    Original file (02226-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2009 | 05012-09

    Original file (05012-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected by modifying the fitness report for 1 July to 24 October 2006 (copy at Tab A}, in accordance with the letters at enclosure (1) from the reporting senior {RS) and reviewing officer (RO), undated and dated 8 January 2009, respectively, by raising the marks in sections D.1 (“Performance”),...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03202-11

    Original file (03202-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 11681-10

    Original file (11681-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2014 | NR4252 14

    Original file (NR4252 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed the requested changes to the marks in sections E.2, F.1 and G.1. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 May 2014. 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 | 09228-09

    Original file (09228-09.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. 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 | CY2006 | 00625-06

    Original file (00625-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 19 January 2006, 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. consequently,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06125-09

    Original file (06125-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09204-08

    Original file (09204-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Tt is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 10 January to 15 May 2007 as you requested. 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...