DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
BUG
Docket No: 6644-12
18 October 2012
tine eth elie lie ie a is sai
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 removing the fitness reports for 21 June to 31
October 2009 and 1 November 2009 to 4 June 2010.
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has
directed removing the contested report for 21 June to 31 October
2009 and modifying the report for 1 November 2009 to 4 June 2010
by marking section A, item 6.a (“Marine Subject Of: Commendatory
Material”) and adding, to section I (reporting senior’s
“Directed and Additional Comments”), “Directed Comments:
Sect [ion] A, Item 6a. SNM [Subject Named Marine] received a
Letter of Appreciation and Certificate of Appreciation during
the reporting period.”
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 17 October 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
reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation
Review Board (PERB), dated 6 April and 19 June 2012, copies of
which are attached. Finally, the Board considered the letter on
your behalf from nited States Marine Corps,
dated 9 July 2012.
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 reports of the PERB
in finding the remaining contested fitness report should stand.
The statement from ‘CUM not persuade the Board that
this report should have evaluated you more favorably. The Board
was unable to find this report should have been split into two
reports, as you contend, noting you did not state why you
believe you should have received two reports for the period
concerned. 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,
Ripe RODS | eM pcp me
ROBERT D. SALMAN
Acting Executive Director
Enclosures
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 | 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 | CY2008 | 10175-08
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. Regarding the recommendation, in paragraphs 4.b.ii and 5 of the JAM5 advisory opinion, to amend the commanding officer’s/RO’s letter of 4 May 2006 (among the ericlosures to the HQMC routing sheet dated 10 October 2006) by removing the words “for his civilian conviction,” the Board noted that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8611 13
— Tt is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 2 June 2011 to 28 February 2012 by filing a Memorandum for the Record showing that section A, item 6.a (“Commendatory Material”) is marked, and including in section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”) “Directed Comments: Item 6A: MRO [Marine reported on] was awarded a Meritorious Mast and two Letters of Appreciation during this reporting period.” A...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5198 14
You requested removing the fitness reports for 1 January to 25 June 2007, 11 July to 31 December 2009 and 19 May to 31 December 2010. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report for 1 January to 25 June 2007 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “MRO [Marine reported on] is assigned to the Body Composition Program.” and “SECT[ion] A, Item 5a: MRO is currently assigned to the Body...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12296-09
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 this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB, except the Board was persuaded that the reporting senior’s portion of the original version of a superseded version of the contested fitness report for 3 October 2007 to 30 September...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 09754 12
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying all four contested fitness reports, as follows: 1 August to 31 December 2009: From section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), remove “I fully expect MRO [Marine reported on] to continue making improvements and if he does” and “with his peers.” 26 June to 6 December 2010: From section K.4 (reviewing officer’s comments), remove “As a Sergeant of Marines MRO is still developing his...
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 | CY2012 | 12554 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 April 2013. of this Board. 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 | CY2009 | 12153-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 February 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...