Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09583-09
Original file (09583-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

JSR

Docket No: 9583-09
19 November 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 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). You also requested
removing your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has
directed modifying the contested section K by removing, from

section K.4 (RO’s comments), “Has demonstrated growth
potential.”

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 19 November 2009. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board. Documentary materiai 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 (HOMC) Performance
Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 8 September 2009, the
advisory opinion from HOMC dated 28 August 2009 and the e-mail
from the HOMC Performance Evaluation Review Branch (MMER} dated
14 September 2009, copies of which are 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 substantially 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 reflected the corrective action effected by CMC.
In view of the above, your application for further relief 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,

Sass

W. DEAN r
Executive IN tor

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 | 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 | 09569-09

    Original file (09569-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the report for 1 August to 27 September 2002 as you requested. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted: of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board’s file on your other case (docket number 8538-09), your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10175-08

    Original file (10175-08.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. Regarding the recommendation, in paragraphs 4.b.ii and 5 of the JAM5 advisory opinion, to amend the commanding officer’s/RO’s letter of 4 May 2006 (among the ericlosures to the HQMC routing sheet dated 10 October 2006) by removing the words “for his civilian conviction,” the Board noted that...

  • 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 | CY2009 | 12156-09

    Original file (12156-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2010 | 03374-10

    Original file (03374-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 June 2010. 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 warranting removal of your failure of selection by the FY 2010 Captain Selection Board. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01229-09

    Original file (01229-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures (except enclosure (2)), naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The Board finds Petitioner’s FY 2009 and 2010 failures should be removed as well, since the marks cited above were in his record for both of the promotion boards concerned, and removing all failures is necessary to restore Petitioner to the status he enjoyed, before the FY 2008 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, as an officer who...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06373-06

    Original file (06373-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Specifically concerning the contested section K of the fitness report for 2 September 2000 to 5 March 2001, the Board found the mark in section K.3, the second lowest of eight possible marks, did not require marking section K.2 (“Evaluation”) “Do Not Concur [with reporting senior].” The Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion from MMOA-4 in concluding your selection by the FY 2007 Major Selection Board would have been definitely unlikely, even if the correction directed by...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03187-11

    Original file (03187-11.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 22 June 2008 to 31 March 2009 (copy at Tab A) by removing section K (reviewing officer's (RO’s) marks and comments). Enclosure (2) reflects that the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board has directed the requested...