Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01161-10
Original file (01161-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
Le

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

JSR
Docket No: 1161-10
4 March 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.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 4 March 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 1 February 2010, a copy of which is
attached, and your letter dated 12 February 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. In this connection, the Board substantially
concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB.
The Board was unable to find you were not counseled about
perceived deficiencies in performance, noting the contested
fitness report indicates you “required constant supervision” and
were provided “more supervision and guidance than required for
‘an officer of [your] experience.” In this regard, the Board
generally does not grant relief on the basis of an alleged
absence of counseling, as counseling takes many forms, so the
recipient may not recognize it as such when it is provided. In
view of the above, your application 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 regularityattaches 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,

\s
W. DEAN P R
Executive ector

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 | 11386-09

    Original file (11386-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested completely removing the fitness report for 31 March to 5 October 2007. and “completed most tasks when supervised and.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 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 | CY2009 | 13064-09

    Original file (13064-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested completely removing the fitness report for 6 December 2008 to 14 May 2009. It ig 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), “Maturity and staff . 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 | 12935-09

    Original file (12935-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02224-10

    Original file (02224-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report by removing, from the section K.4 (reviewing officer’s comments) Addendum Page, “Future assignments for [you] should be in positions were [sic] [you] can be closely supervised and compete with [your] contemporaries within [your] MOS [military occupational specialty] .” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 April 2010. Documentary...

  • 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 | 00174-09

    Original file (00174-09.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 6 January 2009, a copy of which is attached, and your letter dated 3 February 2009 with enclosures. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03972-08

    Original file (03972-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    1 October 1998 to 8 February 1999: Remove from section K.4 (RO’s comments) “A quiet,” 4. 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 material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07385-08

    Original file (07385-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the fitness report for 1 February to 22 March 2000, as you requested, by removing from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”) “but sometimes does not calculate all factors before acting” and “- Moderate supervision is still required for SNO [subject named officer] .” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered...

  • 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...