DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 JSR
Docket No. 08633-09
3 September 2009
This is in reference to your application dated 15 April 2009,
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 previous
case, docket number 07213-07, was denied on 20 September 2007.
You again requested removing the fitness report for 1 September
2006 to 22 January 2007. You added a new request to remove your
failures of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 and 2010
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards. You also requested, if the
contested fitness report is removed, consideration by a special
selection board (SSB) for the FY 2009 Lieutenant Colonel
Selection Board. Finally, you requested an SSB for the FY 2010
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. Your requests regarding the
FY 2010 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board were not considered,
as you have not exhausted your administrative remedies (action
on your request dated 15 April 2009 for an SSB for the FY 2010
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board is pending).
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on
3 September 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
current application, together with all material submitted in
support thereof, the Board's file on your prior case, 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, and your letter
dated 12 August 2009 with enclosures.
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
(paragraph 2 of which does not reflect your case has been heard
twice previously) in concluding the contested fitness report
should stand. 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. Selection Board convened on 5 September 2007. 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,
bo Deas
W. DEAN PFBIFPRER
Executive e
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 | 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 | CY2007 | 04306-07
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed correcting the contested fitness report by changing the entry in item 17.a (“Commendatory”) from “No” to “Yes.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 July 2008. The Board agreed with the advisory opinion from MMOA-4 in concluding the correction of item 17.a of the fitness report at issue would not have appreciably enhanced...
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 | CY2007 | 10212-07
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 | CY2009 | 12156-09
Petitioner further requested completely removing the fitness report for 6 August 2007 to 30 June 2008. In correspondence attached as enclosure (4), the HOMC office having cognizance over the subject matter of Petitioner's request to strike his failures of selection by the FY 2007-2010 AR Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards has commented to the effect that this request has merit and warrants favorable action. e. That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner's naval record be...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00366-08
After he had submitted his application, he also failed of selection by the FY 2009 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. Enclosure (2) is the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) in Petitioner’s case. In correspondence attached as enclosure (3), the HQMC Officer Counseling and Evaluation Section (NNOA-4) commented to the effect that the PERB action did not support removing Petitioner’s failure of selection by the FY 2008 Lieutenant Colonel...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08487-10
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted im support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 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. Since the Board found insufficient basis to remove your failure of selection by the FY 2011...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09788-09
In enclosure (3), MMOA-4, the HOMC Officer Counseling and Evaluation Section, commented to the effect that Petitioner's failures of selection to lieutenant colonel should not be removed, notwithstanding the PERB action, in view of the noncompetitive cumulative relative values in his fitness reports as a major, as well as a fitness report date gap. Notwithstanding enclosure (3), the Board finds Petitioner’s failures of selection to lieutenant colonel should be removed as well. b, That his...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09583-09
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...