Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11372-09
Original file (11372-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

JSR
Docket No: 11372-09
10 December 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 removing the fitness report for 17 January to 24
February 2006. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine
Corps (CMC) has directed removing the uncontested report for 16
January to 24 February 2006.

"A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval

Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 10 December 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 29 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 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.

Executive-Bbirector

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08239-09

    Original file (08239-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the report for 10 January to 28 February 2006 by removing, from section K.4 (reviewing officer's comments), ‘- Physical fitness improved during the reporting period.” and further directed completely removing the report for 1 March to 24 April 2006. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 October 2009. Consequently, when...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09555-09

    Original file (09555-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2012 | 00084-12

    Original file (00084-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the report for 1 January to 12 May 2009 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “Upon completion of his scheduled PME [Professional Military Education] .” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 February 2012. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your...

  • 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 | 08575-09

    Original file (08575-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    29 March to 31 July 2001: “-With continued growth and development will do extremely well.” 2. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00933-06

    Original file (00933-06.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the uncontested “not observed” fitness report for 16 March to 1 June 2004. Per the reference, the Performance Evaluation Review Board has reviewed allegations of error and injustice in subject’s naval record and the following action is requested: a. That subject’s naval record be corrected by removing the following fitness report: Date of Report Reporting Senior Period of Report 29 June 2005 LtCol - 20040316 to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00839-09

    Original file (00839-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 10 January to 28 February 2006 by restoring the mark in section A, item 6.b (“Derogatory Material”) whose removal CMC had directed in your previous case, docket number 5661-08; removing, from the section D.1 (“Performance”) justification, “MRO [Marine reported on] was relieved of duties for violating Depot Order P1510.30L on three separate occasions.” and “because on another...

  • 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 | CY2011 | 02017-11

    Original file (02017-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the contested report for 24 March to 30 September 2006. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 April 2011. 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 | 09857-09

    Original file (09857-09.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 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...