DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No. 09308-10
16 September 2010
This is in reference to your application dated 23 March 2010,
seeking reconsideration of your previous application for
correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of
title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552. Your most
recent previous case, docket number 08633-09, was denied on 3
September 2009.
You again requested removal of the fitness report for 1
September 2006 to 22 January 2007; removal of your failures of
selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 and 2010 Lieutenant
Colonel Selection Boards; and if the contested fitness report is
removed, consideration by a special selection board (SSB) for
the FY 2009 and 2010 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards. You
also added a new request for removal of your failure of
selection by the FY 2111 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board and,
if the contested report is removed, consideration by an SSB for
the FY 2111 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. Your requests
regarding the FY 2010 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board were
not considered, as you have not exhausted your administrative
remedies (your request on a different basis dated 15 April 2009
for an SSB for the FY 2010 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board
was approved on 22 April 2010).
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case 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
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. In addition, the Board
considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps
Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 19 August
2010, a copy of which is attached, and your letter dated
2 September 2010.
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.
Accordingly, the Board again voted to deny relief. 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,
W. DEAN
Executive D
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 | CY2010 | 06266-10
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. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered...
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 | CY2009 | 09583-09
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 | CY2009 | 12156-09
Petitioner further requested completely removing the fitness report for 6 August 2007 to 30 June 2008. In correspondence attached as enclosure (4), the HOMC office having cognizance over the subject matter of Petitioner's request to strike his failures of selection by the FY 2007-2010 AR Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards has commented to the effect that this request has merit and warrants favorable action. e. That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner's naval record be...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09788-09
In enclosure (3), MMOA-4, the HOMC Officer Counseling and Evaluation Section, commented to the effect that Petitioner's failures of selection to lieutenant colonel should not be removed, notwithstanding the PERB action, in view of the noncompetitive cumulative relative values in his fitness reports as a major, as well as a fitness report date gap. Notwithstanding enclosure (3), the Board finds Petitioner’s failures of selection to lieutenant colonel should be removed as well. b, That his...
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 | CY2009 | 01229-09
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures (except enclosure (2)), naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The Board finds Petitioner’s FY 2009 and 2010 failures should be removed as well, since the marks cited above were in his record for both of the promotion boards concerned, and removing all failures is necessary to restore Petitioner to the status he enjoyed, before the FY 2008 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, as an officer who...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04306-07
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed correcting the contested fitness report by changing the entry in item 17.a (“Commendatory”) from “No” to “Yes.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 July 2008. The Board agreed with the advisory opinion from MMOA-4 in concluding the correction of item 17.a of the fitness report at issue would not have appreciably enhanced...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06382-09
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. 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 those documents, it had no grounds to...