Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03374-10
Original file (03374-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

JSR
Docket No: 3374-10
10 June 20106

 

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 that the fitness report for 2 July to 31 October
2008 be modified by removing, from section K (reviewing
officer’s marks and comments), “In the same token, MRO [Marine
reported on]’s potential for success maybe realized if he
demonstrates a desire to excel, and apply himself with a level
of intensity expected of First Lieutenants. As an officer, MRO
needs to learn to step back to see the forest through the trees,
and appropriately separate himself as a leader from those junior
enlisted to whom he is responsible for leading.” You further
requested that the report for 1 November 2008 to 28 January 2009
be modified by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s
“Directed and Additional Comments”), “fyou possess] the basic
knowledge of a Lieutenant in the 7208 community.” and removing,
from section K, “MRO has shown some improvement in leadership
qualities over previous reporting period. still has room for
further development in the most basic of leadership traits
expected of a Second or First Lieutenant. Continues to be
challenged with maintaining the established weight standards.”
Finally, you requested removing your failure of selection by the
Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Captain Selection Board.

It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has
directed all the requested fitness report modifications.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 10 June 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
reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) Performance
Evaluation Review Board (PERB), 20 January (two) and 23 March
(two) 2010 and the advisory opinion from HOMC dated 25 January
2010, copies of which are 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 warranting removal of your failure of
selection by the FY 2010 Captain Selection Board. In this
connection, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory
opinion in finding that the report for 1 November 2008 to 28
January 2009 was not in your record when you were considered by
that promotion board, and in concluding that your selection
would have been definitely unlikely even if the report for 2
July to 31 October 2008 had been corrected. 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,

WAod

W. DEAN PF
Executive or

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06116-09

    Original file (06116-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You also requested completely removing the fitness report for 15 November 2004 to 30 May 2005 and modifying the report for 1 June to l September 2005 by removing the entire section K (RO marks and comments) or, if that modification is denied, raising the mark in section K.3. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing all the contested comments from sections I and K.4 of the report for 14 June to 3 August 2004; modifying the report for 15 November 2004 to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09583-09

    Original file (09583-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested modifying the fitness report for 8 August 2005 to 31 May 2006 by removing the entire section K (reviewing officer’s (RO’s) marks and comments). 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10175-08

    Original file (10175-08.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. Regarding the recommendation, in paragraphs 4.b.ii and 5 of the JAM5 advisory opinion, to amend the commanding officer’s/RO’s letter of 4 May 2006 (among the ericlosures to the HQMC routing sheet dated 10 October 2006) by removing the words “for his civilian conviction,” the Board noted that...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09569-09

    Original file (09569-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the report for 1 August to 27 September 2002 as you requested. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted: of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board’s file on your other case (docket number 8538-09), your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08487-10

    Original file (08487-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted im support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 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. Since the Board found insufficient basis to remove your failure of selection by the FY 2011...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09245-09

    Original file (09245-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (reviewing officer’s marks and comments.) 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 ef an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 09754 12

    Original file (09754 12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2007 | 10212-07

    Original file (10212-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is presumed you desire removing that failure of selection as well.Concerning the report for 1 August to 1 November 1999, you requested removing from section K.4 (reviewing officer’s (RO’s) comments) the sentences “He has valuable experience from prior MOS~ [military occupational specialty] billets that he needs to apply towards his current MOS.” and “His ground duties managerial/leadership aggressiveness needs to improve.” it is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CNC) has...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08458-10

    Original file (08458-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed the requested modification of the report for 26 July 2006 to 28 February 2007. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 August 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 | CY2011 | 03147-11

    Original file (03147-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Petitioner further requested removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) entry dated 19 March 2008, a copy of which is at Tab F. Finally, he requested setting aside the Commandant Of the Marine Corps (CMC)'s revocation dated 8 July 2008 of his selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 First Sergeant Selection Board and promoting him to first sergeant with the lineal precedence he would have had, but for the revocation. The PERB report at enclosure (2) stated that...