Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08573-09
Original file (08573-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

JSR .
Docket No: 8573-09
8 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.

You requested completely removing the fitness reports for 1
January to 4 May 2001, 20 July to 31 December 2002 and 1 January
to 6 July 2003. You further requested modifying the report for
1 January to 5 August 2005 by removing, from section I
{reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “[You
maintain] the minimum standard of a Staff Sergeant.”

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

directed modifying the report for 1 January to 5 August 2005 as
you requested.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 8 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,
vegulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the
report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation
Review Board (PERB), dated 7 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.
Accordingly, 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. — ms

Sincerely,

 

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06116-09

    Original file (06116-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 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 | CY2009 | 09583-09

    Original file (09583-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2009 | 09462-09

    Original file (09462-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By your e-mail dated 24 September 2009, you accepted the CMC actions regarding the reports for 17 March to 25 May 2001 and 8 December 2001 to 12 February 2002. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 2009. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted wags insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or...

  • 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 | 02046-09

    Original file (02046-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 April 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 | CY2009 | 06108-09

    Original file (06108-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12153-09

    Original file (12153-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 | 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 | CY2014 | NR5304 14

    Original file (NR5304 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report for 1 July to 31 December 2008 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “I rank him 6 of 6 Staff Sergeants in the NROTC [Naval Reserve Officers’ Training Corps] program.” and further directed modifying the report for 1 January to 7 August 2009 by removing, from section I, “Promote behind peers. I rank him 6 of 6 Staff Sergeants in the...