DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 4143-11
2 June 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 completely removing the fitness report for 1 July
2005 to 1 March 2006.
It ig noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has
directed modifying the contested report by removing, from the
third sighting officer's comments, the following:
- CO [Commanding Officer] RCT-5 contacted CO, 2d AA
Bn [Battalion] on 060325 and stated he supported the
Co [Company] Cdr’s [Commander’s] decision regarding
the relief. He also passed that he was aware that
[you were] a MSgt [Master Sergeant] (select) and
since [you were] returning home with Advance Party
and A Co was re-deploying soon, that he would leave
the decision on the execution of the promotion warrant
up to me as CO, 2d AA Bn. I submitted a letter to
HOMC [Headquarters Marine Corps] on 060522 recommending
a 6 month delay on the MSgt promotion warrant.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 2 June 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 HQMC Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB),
dated 6 April 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 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. In view of the above, 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,
Ly Demir abs
W. DEAN PFHIF
Executive D ctor
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4255 14
fitness report meets the criteria for derogatory material in Sect A, Item 6B and is rendered adverse IAW [in accordance with] MCO [Marine Corps Order] P1610.7F. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC)} Performance Evaluation Review Board {PERB}), dated 31 March 2014 as amended by the HOMC e-mail dated 10 April 2014 with attachments, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11428-10
You requested modifying the fitness report for 1 October 2009 to 28 January 2010 by removing, from section K.4 (reviewing officer's comments), the comment “SNM [subject named Marine] does not possess the mental dexterity required to lead Marines in extremely challenging environments.” In the alternative, you requested completely removing the contested report. CMC further directed removing, from page 2 of your statement dated 20 February 2010, the following: “I do possess the mental...
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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06881-99
They were unable to find how, if at all, his report influenced your nonjudicial punishment or your removal from the 1998 staff sergeant selection list, nor could they find how he changed his opinions following the review of his report by the CO. We reviewed Sergeant documents concerning his Administrative Remarks page 11 entries dated 980804 and 981125, Offenses and Punishment page 12 entry dated 990311 and CMC letter 1450/3 MMPR-2 dated 2. In view of the above, it is recommended...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05333-01
directed that your Naval record will be corrected by removing therefrom the following fitness report: Having reviewed all the facts of record, the Board has the Performance Evaluation Review Board Date of Keport Reporting Senior Period of Report 22 Jan 99 980801 to 981231 (CH) There will be inserted in your Naval record a memorandum in 2. review ailed + Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) to remove the Change of Reporting Senior Fitness Report for the period 980801 to 981231. equests...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04306-07
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed correcting the contested fitness report by changing the entry in item 17.a (“Commendatory”) from “No” to “Yes.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 July 2008. The Board agreed with the advisory opinion from MMOA-4 in concluding the correction of item 17.a of the fitness report at issue would not have appreciably enhanced...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8172 14
aA three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your | application on il September 2014.. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 3 July 2014, a Copy of which is attached. 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 | CY2011 | 06758-11
You requested completely removing the fitness report for 1 June to 30 September 2009. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “, when required” and from section K.4 (reviewing officer’s comments), “- MRO [Marine reported on] attempted to maintain order during a very hectic and high paced deployment.” A three-member panel of the Board for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06842-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review (PERB), dated 23 August 2001, a copy of which is attached. 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. error to invalidate the entire report and has directed the appropriate corrective action.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03925-06
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:3925-067 September 2006Dear SergeantThis 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, in effect, that the fitness reports for 21 May 2002 to 14 April 2003 and 31 May 2003 to 19 March 2004 be modified by deleting from section I (“Directed and Additional Comments”)...