DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BJG
Docket No: 11210-10
10 November 2010
aR eA EET TAR SS
—
—
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 completely removing the fitness report for & te
22 May 2008.
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has
directed modifying the contested report by removing, from the
third sighting officer addendum page, “This report is a valid
adverse report due to MRO [Marine reported on] receiving a 6105
counseling.”
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 9 November 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. The Board also considered
the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance
Fvaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 4 October 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 report of the PERB. The Board
noted that the uncontested “CH” (change of reporting senior)
fitness report immediately preceding the contested report ends
on 15 May 2008, so the 5 May 2008 beginning date of the
contested report overlaps the uncontested report. However, the
Board was unable to determine whether it is the ending date of
the uncontested report or the beginning date of the contested
report that is incorrect. If the beginning date of the
contested report is incorrect, the Board found this would
support changing the date, rather than removing the report.
The Board did not condone the late submission of the report at
issue, but was unable to find this invalidated it. In this
regard, the Board was unable to find the lateness harmed your
ability to respond effectively. In view of the above, 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,
Loa. GQ
W. DEAN PF R
Executive or
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03250-07
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BJGDocket No:3250-0711 May 2007This 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 removing the fitness report for 5 January to 30September 2003 and replacing it with an administrative fillerthrough 14 April 2004.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC)...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03057-01
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed that the contested fitness report be amended by changing the beginning date from 27 February to 13 April 1996. They found the reviewing officer had no duty to direct the reporting senior to revise or remove those of his comments which rendered the report adverse, but he correctly ensured that you were afforded your rights regarding adverse fitness reports. This includes, but is certainly not limited to, Had there been...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02424-08
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 found the fitness report for 1 January to 21 May 2007 should stand, though it disagreed with the PERB position that the removal of the report for 3 November to 31 December 2006 nullified your objection to not having been counseled before your mark in section G.2 (“Decision Making...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00933-06
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the uncontested “not observed” fitness report for 16 March to 1 June 2004. Per the reference, the Performance Evaluation Review Board has reviewed allegations of error and injustice in subject’s naval record and the following action is requested: a. That subject’s naval record be corrected by removing the following fitness report: Date of Report Reporting Senior Period of Report 29 June 2005 LtCol - 20040316 to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07875-05
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed changing the ending date of the uncontested fitness report for 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000 from 30 June 2000 to 12 February 2000. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 15 September 2005, a copy of which is attached. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 14 September 2005 to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09823-10
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 | CY2007 | 10524-07
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 19 November 2007, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted wasinsufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Per paragraph 8007 of reference (b), CMC has the authority to correct fitness report records when documentary evidence...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06842-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review (PERB), dated 23 August 2001, 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 the existence of probable material error or injustice. error to invalidate the entire report and has directed the appropriate corrective action.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07306-05
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 30 August 2005, 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. When reviewing the petitioner’s case, the Board concluded that the report is a valid “extended” report. The overlapping...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06201-07
After thorough review, the Board found that the petitioner was not in the unit described in section “A”, item 2c, for the fitness report covering the period 20060301 to 20060424 (FD). Regarding the fitness report covering the period 20060801 to 20061020 (CH), the Board found that the reporting senior andSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OFreviewing officer are the rightful reporting officials for the period covered...