DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
7O1 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
JSR .
Docket No: NR475-13
11 April 2013
Dear STS
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 that the £itness report for 1 September 2006 to 1
June 2007 be modified by changing the mark in section E.1
(“Courage”) from “H” (not observed) to “D” (fourth best of seven
possible marks) and changing the mark in section E.2
(“Effectiveness Under Stress”) from “H” to “E” (third best).
You also requested removing your failures of selection by the
Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 and 2014 Lieutenant Colonel Selection
Boards.
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has
directed modifying the fitness report in question as you
requested.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 11 April 2013. 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
report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance
Evaluation Review Board dated 20 November 2012 and the advisory
opinions from HQMC 23 July and 17 December 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 warranting removal of either of your failures
of selection for promotion. In this connection, the Board
substantially concurred with the advisory opinions. in finding
that your failure of selection by the FY 2013 promotion board
should stand. The Board found your failure of selection by the
FY 2014 promotion board should stand as well, because the
fitness reports for 5 June to 14 November. 2008 and 15 November
2008 to 15 April 2009 were corrected on 19 and 20 April 2012,
respectively, before that. promotion board convened on 14 August
2012, and the Board found the advisory opinion dated 17 December
2012 equally applicable to the FY 2014 promotion board. 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. iIn.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,
SR
s
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9152 14
You requested completely removing the fitness report for 5 April to 30 November 2007, and you impliedly requested removing your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 20615 Major Selection Board. In this regard, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion in finding your selection by the FY 2015 promotion board would have been definitely unlikely, even if your record had reflected the modifications CMC has directed to the fitness report at issue. Consequently, when:...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 07272-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 April 2013. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, reguiations and policies. The Board found that your FY 2012 failure of selection should stand as well, since it found insufficient basis to modify your fitness report record;...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08458-10
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed the requested modification of the report for 26 July 2006 to 28 February 2007. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 August 2010. 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 | 08487-10
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted im support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 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. Since the Board found insufficient basis to remove your failure of selection by the FY 2011...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06116-09
You also requested completely removing the fitness report for 15 November 2004 to 30 May 2005 and modifying the report for 1 June to l September 2005 by removing the entire section K (RO marks and comments) or, if that modification is denied, raising the mark in section K.3. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing all the contested comments from sections I and K.4 of the report for 14 June to 3 August 2004; modifying the report for 15 November 2004 to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08554-09
The Board further concurred with the advisory opinion in = concluding your selection by the FY 2010 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board would have been definitely unlikely, even if your record had not included the fitness report CMC has directed removing. request, a Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report for i July 2005 to 21 June 2006, you may submit the RS’s letter and the RO’s endorsement to future selection boards. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
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 | NR10595 14
You requested modifying the fitness report for 16 July 2012 to 31 May 2013 by making section K (reviewing officer's marks and comments) “not observed.” You further requested removing your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year 2015 Major Selection Board. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has irected the requestea modification of the fitness report in R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07740-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 October 2009. 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 | CY2013 | NR8165 13
In this regard, the majority is not persuaded that Petitioner's selection by the FY 2014 promotion board, witha corrected fitness report record, would have been definitely unlikely. The majority notes that Petitioner’s failure of selection by the FY 2015 promotion board, for which he had a corrected fitness report record, must 2 be removed to restore him to the status he had for the FY 2014 board, as an officer who had not failed of selection. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected so...