Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5059 13
Original file (NR5059 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-51090

JSR

Docket No: NR5059-13
10 October 2013

 

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your

haval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the
United States Code, section 1552.

By letter of 11 April 2013, you requested removing the service
record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) entry dated 15
September 2008. You also requested reconsideration of your
previous request (docket number NR3165-13), denied on 23 May

2013, to remove the fitness report for 4 July to 30 September
2008.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 10 October 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, the Board’s file on your previous case, your
naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion from
Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) MIQ dated 1 August 2013, and
the memorandum from HQOMC MMER/PERB dated 23 August 2013.

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 advisory opinion
from MIQ and the memorandum from MMER/PERB. The Board was

&
unable to accept your unsupported assertion th i

GM wether than the person whose signature appears in the
“Signature of CO [commanding officer]” space of the contested
page 11 entry, should have signed the entry as your CO. In this
regard, the Board noted that section A, item 10.f of the
contested fitness report, which documents your receipt of the
page 11 entry, shows the title of Sou: reporting
senior, as “Assistant Log[istics] 1cer,” rather than Co.
Further, the Board observed that section A, item 6.b
(“Derogatory Material”) of the contested fitness report is
marked, reflecting the page 11 entry the report says you
received during the reporting period, and that Marine Corps
Order 1610.7F, paragraph 4003.6.b provides this block is to be

marked “if the MRO [Marine reported on] was the subject of
derogatory material or incident reports received by the RS

[reporting senior] from outside the reporting chain or from

within the reporting chain above the RS level [emphasis added]
during the reporting period.” 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,

Dow
Executive Di r

 

 

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07967-02

    Original file (07967-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure applicable naval record be corrected by removing his fitness report for 1 October 2000 to 3 1 July 2001, a copy of which is at Tab A to enclosure (1). fifth highest, in F.3 ( “setting the ” the reviewing officer ” the g. Petitioner provided a supporting letter dated 30 April 2002 (Tab E to enclosure (1)) from the RS who submitted the contested transfer fitness...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05473-00

    Original file (05473-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    (6), the M arine Corps Recruiting Command ’s request to remove his page 11 entry should be MOS , and 2 In correspondence attached as enclosure (7), the HQMC Enlisted Assignment Branch (MI&A) has also commented to the effect that Petitioner ’s request to remove his page 11 entry should be approved, but his requests concerning his RFC should be denied. Point of contact is M ecommended that the Board equest for removal of the VMC 118(11), page 11 .entry dated Acting Head, Field Support...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00617-06

    Original file (00617-06.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICA QN IN THE CASE OF c. The petitioner does not provide any evidence that a failure to counsel him played any part in the incident that resulted in the adverse nature of the report. A review of the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07980-08

    Original file (07980-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the contested fitness report. Having reviewed all the facts of record, the Board has directed that your naval record will be corrected by removing the following fitness report: Date of Report Reporting Senior Period of Report 16 January 2006 20050101 to 20051231 (AN) 2. By direction DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROAD QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103 1070 MIO SEP 8...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03136-99

    Original file (03136-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    (HQMC) d. Enclosure (2) is the report of the HQMC Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) in Petitioner ’s case.The report reflects the PERB decision that Petitioner for removal of his fitness report should be denied This report reads in pertinent part as follows: ’s request . to not report the DUI conviction. ” (b), the applicable Marine Corps Order governing .civilian conviction will be reported in the CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08259-01

    Original file (08259-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 2 November 2001 with enclosure, the advisory opinion from the HQMC Manpower Management Information Systems Division (MIFD), dated 11 December 2001 with enclosure, and the memorandum for the record dated 23 January 2002, copies of which are attached. The following comments/opinions concerning the page 11 entry 6 . on the Marine's grade, experience, position,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12295-09

    Original file (12295-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report by removing the mark from section A, item 6.b (“Marine Subject Of: Derogatory Material”); removing, from section I (RS’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “Derogatory: Directed Comment, Sect[ion] A, Item 6b: MRO [Marine reported on] has a page ll entry for being arrested and conduct not in keeping with standards expected for an NCO [noncommissioned officer].”; and removing, from your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10007-08

    Original file (10007-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board was unable to find you should have been put on recruiting probation before your relief as area staff noncommissioned officer in charge (ASNCOIC) since your relief was not based entirely on failure to make recruiting mission. The Board found it was a harmless error that the reporting senior (RS) mentioned the alleged failure to make mission in section C (“Billet Accomplishments”) of the fitness report. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09822-10

    Original file (09822-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The PERB took this action because Petitioner “submitted compelling evidence to indicate that the RO’s evaluation may have been biased and possibly influenced by factors other than the petitioner’s performance.” The PERB denied Petitioner’s request to remove the entire report, because it found the RS had provided him performance counseling, the RS's marks and comments did not indicate any bias or unfairness, and Petitioner had “failed to sufficiently establish his claim that the RS’ part of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02641-00

    Original file (02641-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The following comments concerning the page 11 entry dated 960112 4. are provided: a. The following comments concerning the page 11 entry dated 980326 5. are provided:' a. he was he statement would be filed acknowledged the counseling " to" make a statement in Again, it is noted that a copy of the rebuttal statement Sergean furthe b. Sergean does not provide documented evidence to support his claim that the page 11 entry is in error or unjust.