DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S$. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 19001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
JSR
Docket No. NR2999-13
18 September 2014
Dear Master Gunnery Sergeant (ip
This is in reference to your letter dated 25 March 2013, seeking
reconsideration of your previous application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United
States Code, section 1552. You again requested removing the service
record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070}") entry dated 6 July
2011. In your previous case, docket number 10721-11, the Board
denied this relief on 7 February 2012.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 18 September
2014. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in
accordance with administrative reguiations 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, the Board’s file on your
prior case, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations
and policies. The Board also considered the report of the
Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board
(PERB) dated 18 February 2014 and the advisory opinion from HQMC dated
3 July 2034, 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 report of the PERB and the. advisory opinion.
Accordingly, the Board again voted to deny relief. 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,
OBERT J. O’NETLL
Executive Director
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8890 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 9 April 2015. 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. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1703 14
In your previous case, docket number 10449-08, the Board denied this relief on 23 January 2009. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 10 April 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 | CY2002 | 08069-02
In your current application, you again request removing the original report, but you also add a new request to replace it with a revised report the reporting senior has submitted for the pertinent period. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report. Nothing has been furnished with reference (a) that documents any factual errors associated with the fitness report - Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR332 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 24 October 2013. In view of the above, the Board again voted to deny the requested relief. 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 | CY2010 | 06266-10
Your previous request, docket number 12841-09, again seeking to remove the original fitness report and replace it with the revised report, or just remove the original report, and remove your failures of selection to lieutenant colonel, which then included failures of selection by the FY 2005 and 2006 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards, was administratively closed on 25 May 2010. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05661-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 July 2008. 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, and the Board’s files on your prior cases. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08184-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 30 September 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your current application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board's file on your prior case, 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08633-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 3 September 2009. Further, the Board noted that the modification of this report directed by PERB in your previous case was implemented on 7 August 2007, before the FY 2009 Lieutenant Colonel. 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 | 07624-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 19 February 2010. The Board found the removal of that entry from your record did not completely invalidate the contested fitness report, which has been modified by removing all reference to the entry. In this regard, the report as it now appears in your Official Military Personnel File properly reflects all the corrections directed by the report of the PERB dated 22...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03848-06
You now request that this section K be modified, in accordance with the RO’s letter dated 15 February 2006, to reflect that the RO had “insufficient” observation to assess your performance.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 August 2007. The petitioner offers an advocacy letter from the reviewing officer which requests that the report now be marked “insufficient observation” vice “sufficient...