Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07976-10
Original file (07976-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

BUG
Docket No: 7976-10
17 March 2011

 

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 17 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 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
Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 22 July 2010
and 15 February 2011, copies of which are attached. The Board
also considered your rebuttal letter dated 29 August 2010 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 this connection, the Board
substantially concurred with the comments contained in the
reports of the PERB. The Board was unable to find the officer
who acted as the reviewing officer on the contested fitness
report did not have authority to act in that capacity, noting
that he was the commanding general when he reviewed the report.
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 regularity attaches to all efticial
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

imjustice.

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09823-10

    Original file (09823-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the contested reports for 11 March to 15 July 2009 and 1 August to 30 September 2009; and modifying the report for 1 October 2008 to 10 March 2009 by removing the mark in section A, item 6.c (“Disciplinary Action”) and removing, from the third sighting officer’s comments, “SNM [Subject named Marine] has been the subject of numerous Human Factor Boards and Stan [standardization] Boards; all recommendations from...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 07272-12

    Original file (07272-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 April 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, reguiations and policies. The Board found that your FY 2012 failure of selection should stand as well, since it found insufficient basis to modify your fitness report record;...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01974-11

    Original file (01974-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested that the fitness report for 13 June 2009 to 16 March 2010 be removed and that the report for 17 March to 30 June 2010 be removed or modified to make it “not observed.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 April 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11713-10

    Original file (11713-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 March 2011. 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 | CY2011 | 01941-11

    Original file (01941-11.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. The Board also considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 9 February 2011, a copy of which is attached. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted...

  • 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 | CY2014 | NR4256 14

    Original file (NR4256 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2011 | 06711-11

    Original file (06711-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the contested report for 17 dune 2009 to 7 January 2010. , A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 August 2011. 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. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03150-11

    Original file (03150-11.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. The Board also considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 17 March 2011, a copy of which is attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01981-11

    Original file (01981-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 2011. 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 fora correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...