Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09857-09
Original file (09857-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

BUG
Docket No: 9857-09
5 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 completely removing the fitness report for

16 July 2006 to 17 January 2007. It is noted that the
Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the
contested report by removing, from section I (reporting
senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “and maintained
acceptable command climate during a demanding training period
marred by sub-standard [sic] performance of an experienced
field grade pilot.”

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your .
application on 5 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 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 14 September
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, ,

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PF
Executive

   

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 12181-09

    Original file (12181-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Specifically, cmc has directed removing, from section I (reporting senior's “Directed and Additional Comments”), “Directed Comment, Sect [ion] A, 8F: MRO [Marine reported on] was assigned to the Body Composition Program (BCP) during this reporting period.” and from section K.4 (reviewing officer’s comments), “due to her assignment to BCP.” By electronic mail dated 10 March 2010, a copy of which is attached, the staff of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) advised Headquarters...

  • 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 | CY2008 | 11633-08

    Original file (11633-08.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 March 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 | 10766-09

    Original file (10766-09.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 | 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 | CY2009 | 08535-09

    Original file (08535-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC} has directed modifying the contested fitness report by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s (RS’s) “Directed and Additional Comments”), “[You are] capable of producing bigger and better performance and work.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 October 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application,...

  • 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 | 05174-09

    Original file (05174-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the contested report for 1 January to 23 May 2007. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 July 2009. 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 | 12147-09

    Original file (12147-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 16 November 2009, a copy of which is attached. The petitioner argues that this fitness report should be removed from his Official Military Personnei File (OMPF) because the Reporting Senior marks are lower than those of his previous report from the same Reporting Senior, and that he was not counseled about the reduced marks. Each report is an evaluation of the...