Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 12425-10
Original file (12425-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

BJG
Docket No: 12425-10
13 January 2011

 

—

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.

In your previous case, docket number 3249-07, your request to
remove the fitness reports for 2 October 1980 to 31 January
1981, 16 November 1981 to 31 January 1982 and 1 February to 28
July 1982 was denied on 2 May 2007. You now request that the
report for 2 October 1980 to 31 January 1981 be modified by
addition of the reporting senior’s (RS’s) undated letter, and
you again request removing the other two reports. In addition,
————"ou now request changing your reenlistment code from RE-3C
(directed by the Commandant of the Marine Corps or not eligible
and disqualifying factor is not covered by any other code) to
RE-~1A (recommended and eligible).

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 13 January 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, and the Board’s file on
your prior case. The Board also considered the letter from the
Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review
Branch, Personnel Management Division (MMER), dated 31 March
2004, and the report of the HQMC Performance Evaluation Review
Board (PERB), dated 21 October 2010, copies of which are
attached. Finally, the Board considered your rebuttal letter

dated 17 November 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 regard, the Board substantially
concurred with the comments in the letter from MMER and the
report of the PERB. In declining to file the RS’s letter, the
Board observed that the letter did not address any special
order, and that the report for 2 October 1980 to 31 January
1981 mentioned your “marked improvement” in reducing your
administrative error rate. 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.

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,

Nr

W. DEAN PF
Executive rector

Enclosures

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06028-00

    Original file (06028-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    As reflected in enclosure record as he requested, but modified it by removing the following RS verbiage: qualified for promotion at this time but.. mark in item 19 from “NA” to “yes.” .” Also, as shown in enclosure (2), the HQMC PERB did not remove this report from Petitioner ’s “He is not (3), they changed the g* The fifth contested fitness report, for 28 June to 20 July 1985 (Tab E), from a third RS, also documents only that the following be deleted from the RS comments: Petitioner Is...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 03443 12

    Original file (03443 12.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S,. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by completely removing the fitness report for 18 June 2007 to 31 May 2008 (copy at Tab A), modified in his previous case by the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) by removal of section K...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01974-00

    Original file (01974-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has granted your requests to file a clear copy of the fitness report for 18 May 1981 to 4 February 1982, remove the reviewing officer comments from that report, and remove part of a sentence from the report for 30 March to 9 May 1983. fitness reports was requested: Removal of the a. b. Board is directing the complete removal of the Reviewing Officer comments furnished by Colonel Julian since reference contained no provision to allow...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07838-10

    Original file (07838-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    JAMS stated that the NUP “stemmed from [Petitioner’s] failure to report a civilian DUI arrest,” however, the UPB entry actually says he was punished “for failing to notify his command of his DUI conviction [emphasis added] .” JAM5 noted that “the requirement to report the conviction (rather than the arrest) is lawful.” d. Enclosure (4) explains that PERB directed removing the contested fitness report in light of enclosure (3). e. In enclosure (5), the Marine Corps Recruiting Command (MCRC)...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02098-00

    Original file (02098-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your request to enter a “CD” (change of duty) fitness report for 9 March to 10 April 1991, reflecting service in combat with the primary duty of adjutant, could not be considered, as you did not provide such a report. the Reporting Senior's actions in 3c is in no way an invalidating factor in Reference (b) did not contain a very filling out Item 3c and Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5059 13

    Original file (NR5059 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By letter of 11 April 2013, you requested removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) entry dated 15 September 2008. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 October 2013. 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 | CY2002 | 07967-02

    Original file (07967-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure applicable naval record be corrected by removing his fitness report for 1 October 2000 to 3 1 July 2001, a copy of which is at Tab A to enclosure (1). fifth highest, in F.3 ( “setting the ” the reviewing officer ” the g. Petitioner provided a supporting letter dated 30 April 2002 (Tab E to enclosure (1)) from the RS who submitted the contested transfer fitness...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09249-09

    Original file (09249-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board, consisting of Messrs. Ivins, Vogt and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 29 October 2009, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. ‘Enclosure (2), the report of the PERB, reflects that Petitioner's request concerning the report for 31 May to 9 September 2006 was granted, but comments to the effect that Petitioner’s request to modify the report for 5...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11025-06

    Original file (11025-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The board also found the reviewing officer gave credence to the observed evaluation when he concurred with the reporting senior’s report and offered an appraisal of his own.Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF Concerning the fitness report covering the period 20040601 to 20040704 (TD), covering 34 days, the Board found that the reporting senior, LtCol H---, extended the annual report that he completed in the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07980-08

    Original file (07980-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the contested fitness report. Having reviewed all the facts of record, the Board has directed that your naval record will be corrected by removing the following fitness report: Date of Report Reporting Senior Period of Report 16 January 2006 20050101 to 20051231 (AN) 2. By direction DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROAD QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103 1070 MIO SEP 8...