Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 06756-11
Original file (06756-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

BUG
Docket Neo: 6756-11
25 July 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 4 January to 10 June
2010 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s
(RS’s) letter of 25 January 2011, by raising the marks in
sections D.1 (“Performance”), D.2 (“Proficiency”), E.1
(“Courage”), E.2 (“Effectiveness Under Stress”), E.3
(“Initiative”), F.1 (“Leading Subordinates”), F.2 (“Developing
Subordinates”), F.3 ("Setting the Example”), F.4 (“Ensuring
Well-being of Subordinates”), G.2 ("Decision Making Ability”)
and G.3 (“Judgment”) from “Cc” (fifth best of seven possible
marks) to “D” (fourth best); and sections G.1 (‘Professional
Military Education”) and H.1 (“Evaluations”) from “D"” to “EK”
{third best).

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 21 July 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. The Board also considered
the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance
Fvaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 15 June 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 report of the PERB.
Accordingly, your request 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 the RS’s letter 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 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,

 

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 08548 12

    Original file (08548 12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2008 | 05946-08

    Original file (05946-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested, in effect, that the fitness report for 9 June to 25 August 2006 be modified, in accordance with the reporting (RS’s) letter dated 2 June 2008, by raising the marks senior’s in sections D.1 (“Performance”), D.2 (“Proficiency”), F.2 (“Developing Subordinates”), F.4 (‘Ensuring Well-being of Subordinates”) and G.2 (“Decision Making Ability”) from “D” (fourth best of seven possible marks) to “E” (third best); and section G.1 (“Professional Military Education”) from “E” to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08538-09

    Original file (08538-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2009 | 11400-09

    Original file (11400-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (“Professional Military Education”) from *C” (fifth best} to “D.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material a 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00682-11

    Original file (00682-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 February 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 | CY2014 | NR4256 14

    Original file (NR4256 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2010 | 00454-10

    Original file (00454-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 March 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 | CY2010 | 00472-10

    Original file (00472-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 March 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 | CY2010 | 00462-10

    Original file (00462-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 March 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 | CY2010 | 08062-10

    Original file (08062-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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.