DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 9297-10
16 September 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.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 16 September 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 18 August 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 was unable to find you were not counseled, noting that
the reporting senior (RS) refers to “numerous informal talks and
counseling sessions” with you; and the reviewing officer (RO)
says that you were counseled on over 20 occasions, that you were
counseled following your return [: that you
received guidance and direction before you submitted the
allegedly sexually suggestive briefing product to a female
action officer. The Board was likewise unable to find the RS
did not, at the beginning of the reporting period, give you a
billet description or convey your duties and responsibilities.
The Board did not find that the RS contradicted himself, nor did
it find that the RO’s comments contradicted his mark in block
K.2, indicating his concurrence with the RS. The Board found
that the RS, a captain, and the RO, a colonel, were not of the
same grade, so the RO did not have to give an authority source
as would have been required, had he and the RS been of the same
grade. The Board did not condone the untimely submission of the
contested fitness report, but was unable to find this
invalidated it. The Board noted you were afforded an
opportunity to submit statements in reply to both the RS and RO.
The Board could not find that the RO was incorrect in stating
you failed to be at your appointed place of duty on 3 March
2008, nor could it find the unfavorable comments by the RS and
RO about your personal appearance were unwarranted. Finally,
the Board did not consider it necessary for the RO to specify
what he considered sexually suggestive about the briefing
product you submitted to the female action officer.
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 official records.
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an etticial
naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,
lo
W. DEAN PF
Executive Dixe
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01480-10
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 5 February 2010, a copy of which is attached, and your letter dated 25 March 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09499-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 October 2010. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB, noting that the reviewing officer (RO) did not enter a mark in section K.2 indicating concurrence with the adverse evaluation the reporting senior (RS) had submitted, which would have triggered the requirement to afford you a chance to reply...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10449-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 January 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. The Board was likewise unable to find the RO’s portion of the contested fitness report should have been “not observed,” noting that an observed...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12759-09
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 the applicable naval record be corrected by . d. Petitioner contends that the contested fitness report violates the applicable fitness report order, Marine Corps Order P1610.7F, in that it reflects “faint praise”; the marks reflect marginal performance without any corroboration in the narrative; the last two...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR9184 13
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 58. 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 the applicable naval record be corrected by modifying the fitness report for 1 July 2012 to 31 March 2013 (copy at Tab A), in accordance with the reviewing officer (RO)’s letter of 22 May 2013 (at enclosure (1)), by raising the mark in section K.3...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09991-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 February 2009. The Board found nothing objectionable in the reporting senior (RS)'’s use of the word “flippant” in section I (RS’s “Directed and Additional Comments”) of the contested fitness report. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10350-08
concurred with the rd also considered your rebuttal letter dated ith enclosure. The Board could not find the reviewing officer (RO) lacked sufficient lobservation to evaluate you, noting observation need not be direct. 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 | CY2012 | 07272-12
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 | CY2002 | 00836-02
Not withstanding the requirement to report the petitioner's unfortunate failing, of his overall performance and with a most positive "word picture" in Section I. nothing in this process was a quick the report appears to be a fair evaluation Contrary to the Both officers and failing to properly execute that bf enclosure (6) to reference (a), In paragraph seven I MEF clearly holds the petitioner responsible toward C . The petitioner is correct that paragraph 5005 of reference (a) requires the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02442-08
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested fitness report by removing the following from section K.4 (reviewing officer (RO) comments): “-Ranks three of three Sgt’s [sergeants] presently assigned to Contracts.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 May 2008. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material...