Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08575-09
Original file (08575-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DG 20370-5100 .

 

JSR
Docket No: 8575-09
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 that four fitness reports, for the periods
indicated below, be modified by removing the quoted language
from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional

Comments”):

1. 29 March to 31 July 2001: “-With continued growth and
development will do extremely well.”

2. 31 July 2001 to 31 January 2002: “...with continued
growth and development. should do extremely well.”

3. 1 February to 24 May 2002: “...learning his role as a
platoon commander and officer of Marines.”

4. 25 May to 19 December 2002: “With continued growth,
experience, and maturity, MRO [Marine neported on] has the
potential to be an exceptional officer.

It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has
directed the requested modification of the report for 1 February
to 24 May 2002; and directed that the report for 25 May to 19
December 2002 be modified by removing both the language whose
removal you expressly requested and the following immediately
preceding language, to which you did not expressly object:
“Gaining a grasp on his role and responsibilities as a platoon
commander and officer of Marines.”

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,
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.
Accordingly, your application for rélief beyond or other than
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.

Sincerely,

W. DEAN SBE F
Executive D oO :

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00174-09

    Original file (00174-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 6 January 2009, a copy of which is attached, and your letter dated 3 February 2009 with enclosures. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 09754 12

    Original file (09754 12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying all four contested fitness reports, as follows: 1 August to 31 December 2009: From section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), remove “I fully expect MRO [Marine reported on] to continue making improvements and if he does” and “with his peers.” 26 June to 6 December 2010: From section K.4 (reviewing officer’s comments), remove “As a Sergeant of Marines MRO is still developing his...

  • 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 | 04103-09

    Original file (04103-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 15 April 2009, a copy of which is attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 12302-08

    Original file (12302-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested completely removing the fitness reports for 25 July 2003 to 4 January 2004 (extended from 31. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report ending 4 January 2004 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “MRO [Marine reported on] continues to seek self-improvement and is developing into a well rounded administrator”; removing, from section K.4 (reviewing officer (RO)’s comments),...

  • 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 | CY2002 | 06028-00

    Original file (06028-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    As reflected in enclosure record as he requested, but modified it by removing the following RS verbiage: qualified for promotion at this time but.. mark in item 19 from “NA” to “yes.” .” Also, as shown in enclosure (2), the HQMC PERB did not remove this report from Petitioner ’s “He is not (3), they changed the g* The fifth contested fitness report, for 28 June to 20 July 1985 (Tab E), from a third RS, also documents only that the following be deleted from the RS comments: Petitioner Is...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08538-09

    Original file (08538-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 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 | CY2007 | 10212-07

    Original file (10212-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is presumed you desire removing that failure of selection as well.Concerning the report for 1 August to 1 November 1999, you requested removing from section K.4 (reviewing officer’s (RO’s) comments) the sentences “He has valuable experience from prior MOS~ [military occupational specialty] billets that he needs to apply towards his current MOS.” and “His ground duties managerial/leadership aggressiveness needs to improve.” it is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CNC) has...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4748 14

    Original file (NR4748 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on lt September 2014. 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...