DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR ;
Docket No: 2224-10
29 April 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 report for 1
October 2005 to 30 January 2006.
It is noted that the Commandant of. 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. 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 26 February 2010, 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.
The Board did not find the reporting senior’s (RS’s) comments
inconsistent with the marks he assigned you, nor did the Board
find inconsistency between the marks of “H” (not observed) in
sections F.1 (“Leading Subordinates”) and F.2 (“Developing
Subordinates”) and the comment, in section I (RS's “Directed and
Additional Comments”), that you are “fully aware of [your] roles
and responsibilities as [you begin] to develop [your]
‘subordinates.”. In view of the above, 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,
\s,
W. DEAN PF
Executive Dire
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08538-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 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 | 08548 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 October 2012. 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 | CY2006 | 10218-06
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. The reporting senior is to also ensure these comments neither conflict or obscure the remainder Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) of the evaluation. The Board found that the section “I” comments do not conflict with the attribute markings and are in accordance...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08554-09
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 | 01971-11
You requested completely removing the fitness reports for 28 October 2007 to 1 March 2008 and 2 March to 2 September 2008. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report for 28 October 2007 to l March 2008 by removing the entire section K (reviewing officer's marks and comments) and removing, from section I (reporting senior (RS)’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “His next assignment as a canvassing recruiter will potentially allow...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07208-06
Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 2 August 2006 to consider Lieutenant Colon ‘ petition contained in reference (a). He provides an advocacy letter from the reporting senior that states, “these changes will better reflect his (MRO’s) overall performance as it relates to my cumulative average on reports written on majors.” He also requests that seven attribute markings be changed on the fitness report covering the period 20020611 to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07857-08
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed the requested changes to sections E.2, F.1, F.3 and F.5; but with regard to sections D.2, E.1 and G.2, directed raising the marks to “E” rather than “F.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 October 2008. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB),...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00454-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 March 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 | CY2001 | 07166-01
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removal of the contested fitness report for 1 January to 2 February 1996. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated 30 July 2002 with enclosures.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 concluding that no further correction to your fitness report record...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00462-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 March 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...