DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 5012-11
23 June 2011
Dear Master Sergeant Qaim
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.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 23 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 Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation
Review Board (PERB), dated 26 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 further found that the reviewing officer's
acknowledgment of “personal conflict” between you and the
reporting senior was not an acknowledgment that the reporting
senior was biased against you, such that he could not render a
fair and accurate evaluation of your performance. In view of
the above, your application 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,
W. DEAN PF
Executive cor
Enclosure
Copy to:
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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3238 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 May 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2718 14
You requested completely removing the fitness reports for 23 June to 29 September 2011 and 1 January to 10 May 2012. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps {CMC} has directed removing the contested report for 1 January to 10 May 2012 and modifying the report for 23 June to 29 September 2011 by changing the entry in section A, item 3.a (“Occasion”) from “pc” (directed by CMC) to “CD” (change of duty); changing the entry in section A, item @.d (height in inches) from 70 to...
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 | CY2002 | 08069-02
In your current application, you again request removing the original report, but you also add a new request to replace it with a revised report the reporting senior has submitted for the pertinent period. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report. Nothing has been furnished with reference (a) that documents any factual errors associated with the fitness report - Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01974-11
You requested that the fitness report for 13 June 2009 to 16 March 2010 be removed and that the report for 17 March to 30 June 2010 be removed or modified to make it “not observed.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 April 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05435-07
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 that the adversity of the report centers around more than administrative failures. The Board also found that the petitioner rebutted the reporting senior’s evaluation, acknowledged the reviewing officer’s adjudication, and chose not to offer any further rebuttal on his own...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04624-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 May 2011. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 18 April 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 demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 06760-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 July 2011. 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 | CY2002 | 06721-00
t for the period 960914 to 970710 (TR) was Removal of Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive requested. evidenced in the final paragraph of enclosure (6) to reference REPORTING SENIORS HERE WILL BE (a) (i.e., "FITNESS REPORTS. THE FITNESS REPORTS.").