DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY P2U
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No. 2017-11
14 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 removing the fitness reports for 1 October 2005 to 24
March 2006, 24 March to 30 September 2006 and 1 April to 31 May 2008.
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed
removing the contested report for 24 March to 30 September 2006.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 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.
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
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.
<
ed Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Dire
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04143-11
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 did not find persuasive the reporting senior’s letter Of 30 August 2010, recommending that the contested fitness report be removed as he did not believe that you rated an adverse report. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08239-09
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the report for 10 January to 28 February 2006 by removing, from section K.4 (reviewing officer's comments), ‘- Physical fitness improved during the reporting period.” and further directed completely removing the report for 1 March to 24 April 2006. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 October 2009. Consequently, when...
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...
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 | CY2006 | 08393-06
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 29 August 2006, a copy of which is attached. In regard to the report covering the period 20020707 to 20030302 (TDi, the petitioner contends the report is inaccurate based on the reviewing officers non-concurrence with the reporting senior’s attribute markings. The Board concluded that Subj}: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION...
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 | CY2012 | 00084-12
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the report for 1 January to 12 May 2009 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “Upon completion of his scheduled PME [Professional Military Education] .” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 February 2012. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 05926-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 September 2012. The Board also considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 5 June 2012, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC Military Justice Branch, Judge Advocate Division (JAM1), dated 13 April 2012, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05730-10
1 January to 1 May 2006 and modifying the report for 28 April to 31 December 2006 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s *Directed and Additional Comments”), reference to your removal from the Body Composition Program (BCP). A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 July 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00762-11
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 (HQOMC) Performance Fvaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 12 January 2011, a copy of which is attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...