Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 06097-12
Original file (06097-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

BJG
Docket No: 6097-12
27 September 2012

 

Dear

 

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 28 March to 17 July
2009 be modified by raising the mark in section K.3 (reviewing
officer’s “Comparative Assessment”) from the fourth best of
eight possible marks to the third best.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 27 September 2012. 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 31 May 2012, 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.
Accordingly, 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,

sea 4

W. DEAN
Executive Diltec

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9781 14

    Original file (NR9781 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested that the fitness report for 2 June 2012 to 20 June 2013 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS's) letter dated 27 September 2013, by raising the marks in sections E.3 (*Effectiveness-under Stress”), F.2 (“Developing Subordinates”), F.3 (“Setting the Example”) and F.5 (“Communication Skills”) from “D” (fourth best of seven possible marks) to “E” (third best) and lowering the mark in section F.4 (“Ensuring Well-being of Subordinates”) from “EB” to “Za” A...

  • 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 | CY2013 | NR977 13

    Original file (NR977 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    *" A three-tiember panel of the Board for Corréction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 March 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 of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 09913 12

    Original file (09913 12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested modifying the fitness report for 1 July to 24 October 2011, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS‘s) letter dated 10 July 2012 with enclosure, by raising the mark in section E.1 (“Courage”) from “C” (fifth best of seven possible marks) to “D” (fourth best), E.2 (“Effectiveness Under Stress” ) from "C” to “E” (third best) and F.5 (*Communication Skills”) from “D" to WE A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 07272-12

    Original file (07272-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 April 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, reguiations and policies. The Board found that your FY 2012 failure of selection should stand as well, since it found insufficient basis to modify your fitness report record;...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 12463 12

    Original file (12463 12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested that the fitness report for 25 August 2008 to 30 June 2009 be modified, in accordance with.the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 18 June 2012, by raising the marks in . A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 April 2013. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8902 14

    Original file (NR8902 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 January 2015. 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 (HOMC) Performance Fvaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 23 September...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10609-10

    Original file (10609-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 October 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 | 09509-10

    Original file (09509-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 September 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 | CY2014 | NR4252 14

    Original file (NR4252 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.