DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No. 01981-11
7 April, 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.
You requested that the fitness report for 1 June 2008 to 8 June 2009
be modified, in accordance with the reviewing officer's (RO's)
undated endorsement on your letter dated 14 September 2010, by
changing the mark in section K.1 (RO’s “Observation”) from
“Gufficient” to “Insufficient,” removing the mark of “Concur” from
section K.2 (RO’s “Evaluation”), removing the mark from section K.3
(RO’s “Comparative Assessment”) and removing the comments from
section K.4 (RO’s “Comments”).
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April
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. In addition, the
Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps
Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 15 February 2011,
a copy of which is attached, and your letter dated 7 March 2011 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. In
this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments
contained in the report of the PERB. Accordingly, your application
has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel
will be furnished upon request.
Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report in question,
you may submit your letter of 14 September 2010 with the RO's
endorsement to future selection boards.
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 fora correction of an official naval record, the burden
is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
Sincerely,
\v Some
W. DEAN PFEL
Executive Dir
Enclosure
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 | CY2010 | 09536-10
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 JSR Docket No. 1552 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 dtd 22 Apr 10 w/attachments (2) HQMC MMER/PERB memo dtd 27 Aug 10 (3) Subject's naval record ‘Li 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 12829-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 January 2011. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB, except to not you did not request completely removing section K (RO’s marks and comments) of the reports in question. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
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 | 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 | CY2014 | NR4256 14
You requested modifying the fitness reports for 13 June 2010 to 31 March 2011 and 1 April to 22 August 2011 in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS‘’s) letter dated 1 May 2013 and the reviewing officer’s (RO’s) endorsement dated 3 May 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, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction...
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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02226-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 July 2010. 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 | 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 | NR7878 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 Bugust 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...