DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX ,
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 12667-09
4 February 2010
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 initially requested completely removing the fitness reports
for 5 June to 15 December 1999), 16 December 1999 to 31 March —
2000 and 1 April-to 31 July 2000. By e-mail dated 30 September
2009 you amended your application, as it concerned the report
for 5 June to 15. December 1999, to request modification by
removing section K (reviewing officer marks and comments),
rather than complete removal.
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has
directed modifying the report for 5 June to 15 December 1999, as
you requested, by removing section K; modifying the report for
16 December 1999 to 31 March 2000 by removing section K and
removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and
Additional Comments”), “His ability to accomplish tasks is
improving with guidance from both his peers and seniors.”; and
completely removing the report for 1 April to 31 July 2000.
.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 4 February 2010. 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 2 December 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, specifically, complete removal of the report for 16
December 1999 to 31 March 2000, has been denied. The names and
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon
request.
Tt 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,
Leak
W. DEAN PF BR
Executive tor
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03521-09
However, in only 60 days since the end of his last reporting period, I cannot say that he has moved up in his peer ranking.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 June 2009. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 1 April 2009, a copy of which is attached. Removal of the fitness reports for the periods 19990101...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12153-09
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 | CY2010 | 06672-10
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report for 18 December 2000 to 31 December 2001 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “In the past, MRO [Marine reported on] has had a problem maintaining bearing in stressful situations. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5198 14
You requested removing the fitness reports for 1 January to 25 June 2007, 11 July to 31 December 2009 and 19 May to 31 December 2010. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report for 1 January to 25 June 2007 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “MRO [Marine reported on] is assigned to the Body Composition Program.” and “SECT[ion] A, Item 5a: MRO is currently assigned to the Body...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08268-09
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the report for 10 July to 2 December 1999 by removing, from section K.4 (reviewing officer's comments) , “given limited tasks and direct guidance.” and “but requires. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official: naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 09754 12
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 | CY2006 | 06373-06
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 | CY2008 | 12302-08
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 | CY2014 | NR5184 14
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report for 1 July to 12 December 2008 by changing the date in section A, item 3.b (beginning date) from *20080701" to “20081002” {and filing in your record an administrative filler for 1 July to 1 October 2008} and modifying the report for 13 December 2008 to 19 May 2009 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed ana Additional Comments”), all but the first sentence and in section K...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07847-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 October 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. ‘aw After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish...