Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3945 13
Original file (NR3945 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 5, COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-24890

 

JSR

Docket No: NR3945-13
18 June 2014

 

Dear Colon] 4”

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of titie 10 of the
United States Code, section 1552.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 19 June 2014. 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
reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation
Review Board (PERB), dated 25 April 2013 and 15 April 2014,

copies of which are attached, and your letter dated 7 June 2013
with enclosures.

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 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

Pay
! 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,

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8611 13

    Original file (NR8611 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    — 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 | NR4757 14

    Original file (NR4757 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested removing the fitness report for 2 March to 30 June 2013. , Tt is noted that CMC has directed filing in your record copies of your four letters of appreciation (LOA’s) dated 20 April, 4 May, 5 June and 12 June 2013, and modifying the contested fitness report by marking section A, item 6.a (*Commendatory Material”) and adding to section I (reporting senior’s SPArecced: an@ Additional Comments”) ‘Directed Comment: received four LOA’s for volunteer community service.” A...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5265 14

    Original file (NR5265 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Tt is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”) of the contested report for 30 September 2022 to 25 June 2013 by removing the word “capable” from the First sentence and in the fifth sentence, changing the comma after the word “complete” to a period and removing “MRO [Marine reported on] should attend MOS [military occupational specialty] school at first opportunity.” and modifying section...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9775 14

    Original file (NR9775 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has airected the requested change to the entry in section A, item 8.h of the report for 26 April to 30 June 2013. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 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 | CY2013 | NR7160 13

    Original file (NR7160 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report by changing the beginning date from 1 April 2007 to 14 July 2007 (and filing an administrative filler for 1 April to 13 July 2007); removing, from section I (reporting senior's “Directed and Additional Comments”), “MRO [Marine reported on] is currently enrolled in the BCP [Body Composition Program] program." A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5248 14

    Original file (NR5248 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 26 June 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 | CY2014 | NR4759 14

    Original file (NR4759 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It 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 comments), “He executed his responsibilities competently when assigned.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 June 2014. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB}, dated...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7108 13

    Original file (NR7108 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 June 2014. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the reports of the PERB. Conseguently, 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 | NR2722 14

    Original file (NR2722 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 April 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 | 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...