Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 09754 12
Original file (09754 12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 5. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

JSR
Docket No: 09754-12
28 November 2012

 

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 reports for 1
August to 31 December 2009, 26 June to 6 December 2010, 7
December 2010 to 31 March 2011 and 1 April to 10 July 2011.

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 leadership skills and requires further
mentoring to perform at the level of his peers.”

27 December 2010 to 31 March 2011: From section K.4,
remove “despite being graded below his peers” and “Continued
growth as a Sergeant recommended prior to promotion.”

1 April to 10 July 2011: From section I, remove “He is
able to complete moderate tasks with little or no supervision.
With continued guidance from a [sic] active mentor I feel as
though he may be able to overcome some of the previously noted
shortcomings that have been holding him back from excelling as a
leader of Marines.”; and from section K.4, remove “MRO is still

refining his abilities as a leader but displays an enthusiasm
for future growth.”

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 28 November 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. In addition, the Board considered the
two reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance
Evaluation Review Board (PERB), each dated 25 September 2012,
copies of which are 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 reports of the
PERB. Accordingly, 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,

 

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03374-10

    Original file (03374-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 June 2010. 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 warranting removal of your failure of selection by the FY 2010 Captain Selection Board. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4761 14

    Original file (NR4761 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has Girected modifying the contested report for 28 April to 31 December 2011 by removing, from section K.4 (reviewing officer's (RO’s) comments), “MRO [Marine reported on] continues to develop and hone skills required to effectively support Special Operations Marines in combat operations.” and further directed removing the entire section K (RO’s marks and comments) from each of the other three reports at issue. A three-member panel...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5198 14

    Original file (NR5198 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 03521-09

    Original file (03521-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, in only 60 days since the end of his last reporting period, I cannot say that he has moved up in his peer ranking.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 June 2009. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 1 April 2009, a copy of which is attached. Removal of the fitness reports for the periods 19990101...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08575-09

    Original file (08575-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    29 March to 31 July 2001: “-With continued growth and development will do extremely well.” 2. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed the requested modification of the report for 1 February to 24 May 2002; and directed that the report for 25 May to 19 December 2002 be modified by removing both the language whose removal you expressly requested and the following immediately preceding language, to which you did not expressly object: “Gaining a grasp on his role...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09264-09

    Original file (09264-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Tt is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report by removing, from section K.4 (reviewing officer's marks and comments), “With continued effort MRO [Marine reported on] should be considered for promotion with peers.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03925-06

    Original file (03925-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:3925-067 September 2006Dear SergeantThis 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, in effect, that the fitness reports for 21 May 2002 to 14 April 2003 and 31 May 2003 to 19 March 2004 be modified by deleting from section I (“Directed and Additional Comments”)...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8728 14

    Original file (NR8728 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying section I of the fitness report for i November 2012 to 31 March 2013 as you requested. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 October 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8716 14

    Original file (NR8716 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 11 September 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. 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 | 10450-08

    Original file (10450-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested removing the fitness reports for 19 November 2002 to 1 August 2003 and 2 August to 31 December 2003. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report for 2 August to 31 December 2003 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “MRO [Marine reported on] is beginning to improve as a career planner through assistance by senior SNCOs [staff noncommissioned officers] in the battalion. ...