DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No. 06266-10
24 March 2011
This is in reference to your e-mail dated 8 June 2010, seeking
reconsideration of your previous applications for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United
States Code, section 1552.
On 13 September 2001, the Board denied your previous request, docket
number 6346-01, to remove the fitness report for l October to 12
December 1991. On 20 March 2003, the Board denied your previous
request, docket number 7823-02, to remove your failures of selection
by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 and 2004 Lieutenant Colonel Selection
Boards. On 21 August 2003, the Board denied your previous request,
docket number 3768-03, either to remove the original fitness report
for the period in question and replace it witha revised report for
the same period, showing your peer ranking as “1” of “9," or amend
the original report by changing the peer ranking from “9" of “9" to
“1" of “9”; or if neither of these actions is possible, remove the
original report; and remove the failures of selection by the FY 2003
and 2004 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards. Your previous
request, docket number 12841-09, again seeking to remove the original
fitness report and replace it with the revised report, or just remove
the original report, and remove your failures of selection to
lieutenant colonel, which then included failures of selection by the
FY 2005 and 2006 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards, was
administratively closed on 25 May 2010. You now renew the request
you had made in the case that was administratively closed. You also
add a new request to adjust your lieutenant colonel date of rank and
effective date from 1 May 2006 to reflect selection by the FY 2003
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, rather than FY 2007.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 24 March
2011. 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 e-mail, together with the
Board's files on your prior cases, your naval record and applicable
statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board
considered the reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance
Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 22 September 2010 and 2 March
2011, copies of which are attached, and your letters dated 3 November
2010 with enclosures and 17 March 2011.
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 ipjuseiee. I
this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments
contained in the report of the PERB dated 22 September 2010, except
paragraph 2.a, and the PERB report dated 2 March 2011 in concluding
no correction to your fitness report record was warranted. The Board
noted that the requirement to show all completed fitness reports to
the Marine reported on did not take effect until 1 June 1992, after
the reporting period in question, but before the reporting senior
signed the report at issue on 27 June 1992. If that requirement
applied to the contested report, the Board concluded the reporting
senior’s failure to show you the completed report before submitting
it was a harmless error, as the report is not adverse and the Board
found nothing improper about it. Since the Board again found no
defect in your performance record, it again had no basis to remove
either of your failures of selection by the FY 2003 and 2004
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards, nor did it have any basis to
remove either of your failures of selection by the FY 2005 and 2006
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards. Finally, because the Board
found insufficient basis to remove any of your failures of selection
for promotion, it had no grounds to backdate your lieutenant colonel
date of rank and effective date. In view of the above, the Board
again voted to deny relief. The names and votes of the members of
the panel will be furnished upon request.
Although the Board voted not to enter the revised report in your
record, you may submit the reporting senior’s letters dated 18 June
and 2 July 2003 and 27 July 2004 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,
Sek.
Fxecutive Dingc
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 03768-03
of 11931 to “ 1” of 39933; or if neither of these actions is possible, remove the original report; and remove the failures of selection by the FY 2003 and 2004 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your letter, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board’s files on your prior cases, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The modification of the report would increase the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03139-06
You further requested removing your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Active Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, on the basis that your record, as it was presented to that promotion board, included the contested original report, it did not include the revised report, and you allege it reflected identical RO marks and comments in the fitness reports for 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004 and 1 July to 20 December 2004. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02101-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 October 2003. Having reviewed all the facts of record, the Board has directed that your Naval record will be corrected by removing therefrom the following fitness reports: Date of Report Reporting Senior Period of Report 13 Jul 88 9 Jan 89 Capt Capt P 880414 to 880704 (DC) 880705 to 881231 (SA) 2. The Commandant of the Marine Corps is not empowered to grant or...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09308-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 16 September 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your current application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board's files on your prior cases (docket numbers 07213-07 and 08633-09), your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09555-09
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the contested fitness report for 25 November 2002 to 29 May 2003. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 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 | CY2001 | 02041-01
Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) for removal of the record and 02 USMC He petitioned the porting Senior fitness report of 980831 to 990731. requests removal of his failures of selection. Performance Evaluation Review Board He failed selection He petitioned the (PERB) for removal of the rting Senior fitness report of 980831 to 990630. equests removal of his failures of selection. Head, Personnel Management Support was removed from the OMPF on 5 October emphatically states that the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08487-10
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 | 08633-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 3 September 2009. Further, the Board noted that the modification of this report directed by PERB in your previous case was implemented on 7 August 2007, before the FY 2009 Lieutenant Colonel. 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 | CY1998 | 07639-98
The new statements at enclosures (2) through (4) of your current application, among these a statement from the reviewing officer who acted on your fitness report at issue, did not persuade them that this report should be removed. 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. Subsequently, Major Performance Evaluation Review Board for removal from the record of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06373-06
Specifically concerning the contested section K of the fitness report for 2 September 2000 to 5 March 2001, the Board found the mark in section K.3, the second lowest of eight possible marks, did not require marking section K.2 (“Evaluation”) “Do Not Concur [with reporting senior].” The Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion from MMOA-4 in concluding your selection by the FY 2007 Major Selection Board would have been definitely unlikely, even if the correction directed by...