DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No. 00431-11
31 March 2011
This is in reference to your application dated 3 August 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 previous case, docket number
00897-07, requesting removal of the fitness report for 2 June to 24
December 2005, was denied on 23 February 2007. You have added a new
request to remove the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks
(1070)”) counseling entry dated 24 December 2005 and your undated
rebuttal.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 31 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 current application,
together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board's
file on your prior case, 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 4 January 2011, 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
the contested fitness report was submitted in lieu of disciplinary
action, or that the misconduct it reflects was not relevant to your
in section K.3 (reviewing officer's (RO's) “Comparative Assessment” )
of the contested report and the RO’s favorable comments in section
K.4, on the one hand, and on the other, the RO’s statement, in his
reply to your statement of 28 December 2005, “I recommend that [you]
not be considered for promotion at any time.” Since the Board still
found insufficient basis to remove the fitness report at issue, it
had no grounds to remove the contested page 11 entry. In view of
the above, the Board again voted to deny relief. The names and votes
of the members of the pgnel will be furnished upon request.
Ht is regretted that ¢he 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
Fegularity 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,
ens
W. DEAN PF
Executive DireStor
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 | 03848-06
You now request that this section K be modified, in accordance with the RO’s letter dated 15 February 2006, to reflect that the RO had “insufficient” observation to assess your performance.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 August 2007. The petitioner offers an advocacy letter from the reviewing officer which requests that the report now be marked “insufficient observation” vice “sufficient...
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 | CY2008 | 12302-08
You requested completely removing the fitness reports for 25 July 2003 to 4 January 2004 (extended from 31. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report ending 4 January 2004 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “MRO [Marine reported on] continues to seek self-improvement and is developing into a well rounded administrator”; removing, from section K.4 (reviewing officer (RO)’s comments),...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4761 14
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has Girected modifying the contested report for 28 April to 31 December 2011 by removing, from section K.4 (reviewing officer's (RO’s) comments), “MRO [Marine reported on] continues to develop and hone skills required to effectively support Special Operations Marines in combat operations.” and further directed removing the entire section K (RO’s marks and comments) from each of the other three reports at issue. A three-member panel...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7247 14
and by removing “Directed Comment, Sectfion] A, Item Tb: recommend that the MRO [Marine reported on] not be considered for promotion with his contemporaries.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 August 2014. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06116-09
You also requested completely removing the fitness report for 15 November 2004 to 30 May 2005 and modifying the report for 1 June to l September 2005 by removing the entire section K (RO marks and comments) or, if that modification is denied, raising the mark in section K.3. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing all the contested comments from sections I and K.4 of the report for 14 June to 3 August 2004; modifying the report for 15 November 2004 to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8716 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 September 2014. 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 | 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 | CY2006 | 06373-06
Specifically concerning the contested section K of the fitness report for 2 September 2000 to 5 March 2001, the Board found the mark in section K.3, the second lowest of eight possible marks, did not require marking section K.2 (“Evaluation”) “Do Not Concur [with reporting senior].” The Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion from MMOA-4 in concluding your selection by the FY 2007 Major Selection Board would have been definitely unlikely, even if the correction directed by...