DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 3202-11
12 May 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 to 31 December
2006 be modified by raising the marks in sections E.1
(“Courage”), E.2 (“Effectiveness Under Stress”), E.3
(“Initiative”), F.3 (“Setting the Example”), F.4 (“Ensuring
Well-being of Subordinates”), F.5 (“Communication Skills”) and
G.3 (“Judgment”) from “C" (fifth best of seven possible marks)
to “D” (fourth best); and sections D.1 (“Performance”), D.2
(“proficiency”), F.1 (“Leading Subordinates”), F.2 (“Developing
Subordinates”), G.1 (“Professional Military Education”) and G.2
(“Decision Making Ability”) from “D” to “RE” (third best). You
also requested that this report be modified by raising the mark
in section K.3 (reviewing officer (RO)’s “Comparative
Assessment”) from the sixth best of eight possible marks to
match others the RO highly recommended for promotion. You
further requested that the fitness report for 1 January to 26
April 2007 be modified by raising the mark in section G.3 from
“Cc” to “D”; E.1, E.2 and G.2 from “C” to “E”; F.5 £from *C” to
“FE” (second best); and D.1, O.5, F.l, Feay Fed, F.4 and G.1 from
“Dp” to “E.” You also requested that this report be modified by
raising the mark in section K.3 from the sixth best to match
others the RO highly recommended for promotion. Finally, you
requested that the fitness report for 1 January to 9 July 2008
be modified by raising the mark in section E.2 from “B” (sixth
best) to “C”; and F.2, F.3, F.4 and F.5 from “C” to “D."
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has
directed modifying the report for 1 June to 31 December 2006 by
raising the marks in sections E.1, E.2, E.3, F.4 and F.5 as you
requested; and further directed modifying the report for 1
January to 26 April 2007 by raising the marks in sections E.1,
E.2, F.5 and G.2 from “C” to NED gl!
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 12 May 2011. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and pracedures 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 (you did not provide enclosure (2) to your
letter of 15 September 2010 submitted in support of your
application requesting modification of the fitness reports for 1
June to 31 December 2006 and 1 January to 26 April 2007), your
naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and polieses:.
Tn addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters
Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Fvaluation Review Board (PERB),
dated 11 March 2011, and the HOMC e-mail dated 25 March 2011,
copies of which are 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,
as amended by the e-mail dated 25 March 2011. 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.
Sincerely,
Ww. EAN P
Executive Dil Oo
Enclosure
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 | CY2009 | 08538-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 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 | CY2008 | 09204-08
Tt is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 10 January to 15 May 2007 as you requested. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4252 14
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed the requested changes to the marks in sections E.2, F.1 and G.1. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 May 2014. 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 | 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 | CY2010 | 11681-10
You requested, in effect, that the fitness report for 2 June to 12 August 2009 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 16 April 2010 and the reviewing officer's (RO’s) letter dated 20 April 2010, by raising the marks in sections D.1 (“Performance”), F.1 (“Leading Subordinates”) and F.3 (“Setting the Example”) from “D” (fourth best of seven possible marks) to “E” (third best) and section G.1 (“Professional Military Education”) from "C” (fifth best) fo...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10218-06
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 reporting senior is to also ensure these comments neither conflict or obscure the remainder Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) of the evaluation. The Board found that the section “I” comments do not conflict with the attribute markings and are in accordance...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09230-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 December 2008. 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 | 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 | CY2012 | 08548 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 October 2012. 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...