Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12935-09
Original file (12935-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

JSR
Docket No; 12835-0939
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 requested completely removing the fitness reports for 17
July 2007 to 31 May 2008 and 1 June to 4 September 2008.

It ig noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has
directed modifying the contested report for 17 July 2007 to 31
May 2008 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s
“Directed and Additional Comments”), “Able to complete tasks
with supervision and or assistance.”

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 3 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 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,
\eos8 5
W. DEAN PF
Executive or

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12296-09

    Original file (12296-09.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 this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB, except the Board was persuaded that the reporting senior’s portion of the original version of a superseded version of the contested fitness report for 3 October 2007 to 30 September...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5198 14

    Original file (NR5198 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 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 | 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 | CY2007 | 09881-07

    Original file (09881-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing, rather than modifying, the contested report for 2 June to 26 October 2006. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 February 2008. 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 | 11557-09

    Original file (11557-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report by removing from section K.4 (reviewing officer’s comments), “- MRO [Marine reported on] becoming familiar with reserve administration.” and “- MRO’s leadership ability continues to develop in [sic] improve.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 2010. Documentary material considered by the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09823-10

    Original file (09823-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the contested reports for 11 March to 15 July 2009 and 1 August to 30 September 2009; and modifying the report for 1 October 2008 to 10 March 2009 by removing the mark in section A, item 6.c (“Disciplinary Action”) and removing, from the third sighting officer’s comments, “SNM [Subject named Marine] has been the subject of numerous Human Factor Boards and Stan [standardization] Boards; all recommendations from...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4748 14

    Original file (NR4748 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on lt September 2014. 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 | CY2008 | 12302-08

    Original file (12302-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2007 | 04306-07

    Original file (04306-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...