i
4
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DCG 20370-5100
BUG
Docket No: 6758-11
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 completely removing the fitness report for 1 June
to 30 September 2009. You also impliedly requested removing
your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year 2012 Major
Selection Board.
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 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
Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 20 June 2011, a copy SE
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 in
concluding that the contested fitness report, as modified,
should stand. The Board found the modification would not have
appreciably enhanced your competitiveness before the promotion
board. In view of the above, your request 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,
\p eas PFE
Executive Di
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08487-10
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted im 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 existence of probable material error or injustice. Since the Board found insufficient basis to remove your failure of selection by the FY 2011...
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 | CY2014 | NR9152 14
You requested completely removing the fitness report for 5 April to 30 November 2007, and you impliedly requested removing your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 20615 Major Selection Board. In this regard, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion in finding your selection by the FY 2015 promotion board would have been definitely unlikely, even if your record had reflected the modifications CMC has directed to the fitness report at issue. Consequently, when:...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01971-11
You requested completely removing the fitness reports for 28 October 2007 to 1 March 2008 and 2 March to 2 September 2008. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report for 28 October 2007 to l March 2008 by removing the entire section K (reviewing officer's marks and comments) and removing, from section I (reporting senior (RS)’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “His next assignment as a canvassing recruiter will potentially allow...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06116-09
You also requested completely removing the fitness report for 15 November 2004 to 30 May 2005 and modifying the report for 1 June to l September 2005 by removing the entire section K (RO marks and comments) or, if that modification is denied, raising the mark in section K.3. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing all the contested comments from sections I and K.4 of the report for 14 June to 3 August 2004; modifying the report for 15 November 2004 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 | 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 | 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 | CY2009 | 09583-09
You requested modifying the fitness report for 8 August 2005 to 31 May 2006 by removing the entire section K (reviewing officer’s (RO’s) marks and comments). 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08366-02
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modification of your fitness report for 18 April to 1 September 1998 by removing the last two sentences from the reviewing officer ’s comments. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 November 2002. Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISOR SERGEAN HE CASE OF STAFF USMC despite the difficulties...