DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
7015S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
HD
Docket No: NR4654-13
20 March 2014
Dear Senior Chief gsigeiepeit.
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.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on
20 March 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 and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the
advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated
8 August 2013, 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 advisory
opinion, except to note your record now does include a detachment
performance evaluation report from NMCB25 DET 1725 to RTC Great Lakes
DET 1367, for 16 March 2004 to 15 March 2005. The Board found the
appropriate administrative change letter you might prepare would
change block 15 (“Period of Report - To”) of that report from 15 March
2005 to 16 May 2004. Specifically concerning the contested
performance evaluation report for 17 February to 15 September 2009,
the Board noted that while you do object that this report does not
reflect the reporting senior’s signature, you do not contend that
he did not submit it, or that it does not accurately reflect his
assessment of your performance. For these reasons, the Board
concluded that the absence of the reporting senior’s signature is
not a material error warranting removal of the report. In view of
the above, 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,
(Ree 8
ROBERT D 4SALMAN
Acting Executive Director
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01148-06
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 theapplicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.Sincerely,W. The member requests the report be submitted to him by another reporting senior.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05058-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 September 2008. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion, except to note your request was not for remedial consideration for promotion to master sergeant, but adjusting the date of rank and effective date of your promotion to reflect selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Master Sergeant Selection...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06342-06
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 member’s statement and the reporting senior endorsement are both included in the member’s record. In this case, the reporting senior assigned the member a promotion recommendation of “Promotable,” which in no way equates to deficient performance.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01379-09
You requested completely removing the fitness report for 5 May to 2 September 2008. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 11 February 2009, a copy of which is attached, and your letter dated 4 March 2009. 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 | CY2007 | 10533-07
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O37O-5100 JSRDocket No. 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 (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 16 and 19 November 2007 and 15 January 2008,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00858-06
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 May 2006. 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. San Diego, CA for shore duty with a Projected Rotation Date (PRD) of December 2005. lAW Ref(a) to maintain his CONSUBPAY eligibility, he needed to extend/reenlist through February...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04642-08
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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 19 June 2008, a copy of which is attached. 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 | CY2002 | 00924-02
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 member alleges the copy of the concurrent report provided with her petition was mandatory, when the new reporting senior reported onboard she was already TAD, if block- 16 is not marked and any trait is graded, the report is considered observed and all traits must be graded or marked NOB,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05140-06
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 9 September and 6 October 2006, 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. Official record reviews indicated that member was approved for conversion from the NM rating to GSM rating under the Selective...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01647-07
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 24 April 2007, a copy of which is attached. A review of the member’s headquarters record revealed the original fitness report and member’s statement with reporting senior’s endorsement to be on file. The reporting senior has submitted in enclosure (1), and we will process the supplemental letter and revised report per the reporting senior’s request and place both documents in the member’s OMPF.