DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BJG
Docket No: 2226-10
12 July 2010
ee
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, in effect, that the fitness report for 20 August
to 31 December 2008 be removed or modified, in accordance with
the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 27 October 2009 and
the reviewing officer’s (RO’s) endorsement dated 28 October
2009, by raising the mark in section D.2 (“Proficiency”) from
“co” (fifth best of seven possible marks) to “E” (third best) ;
and the marks in sections E.2 (“Effectiveness Under Stress”),
E.3 (“Initiative”), F.1 (“Leading Subordinates”), F.4
(“Ensuring Well-being of Subordinates”), G.1 (“Professional
Military Education”), G.2 (“Decision Making Ability”) and G.3
(“Judgment”) from “C” to “D” (fourth best).
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 9 July 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. The Board also 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 report of the PERB.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon
request.
Although the Board voted not to remove or modify the fitness
report in question, you may submit the RS’s letter and the RO’s
endorsement to future selection boards.
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. DEAN PFEIIRFE
Executive Dikec
Enclosure
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 | CY2010 | 02153-10
: A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 April 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 | 02180-10
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. Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report in question, you may submit the RS's letter and the RO’s endorsement to future selection boards. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09484-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 October 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 | 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 | CY2014 | NR4256 14
You requested modifying the fitness reports for 13 June 2010 to 31 March 2011 and 1 April to 22 August 2011 in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS‘’s) letter dated 1 May 2013 and the reviewing officer’s (RO’s) endorsement dated 3 May 2013. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09228-09
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. 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 | 00625-06
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 19 January 2006, 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. consequently,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06125-09
best) to “D.” oO A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 August 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05012-09
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected by modifying the fitness report for 1 July to 24 October 2006 (copy at Tab A}, in accordance with the letters at enclosure (1) from the reporting senior {RS) and reviewing officer (RO), undated and dated 8 January 2009, respectively, by raising the marks in sections D.1 (“Performance”),...