Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8636 13
Original file (NR8636 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S$. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

JSR
Docket No: NR8636-13
28 August 2014

 

Dear Staff Sergeant Jr

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 28 August 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 14 November 2013 and 30 June 2014,
copies of which are attached, and the reporting senior’s letter
in your behalf dated 26 January 2013 (sic).

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, The Board duly noted the reporting senior’s letter, but
observed that it did not recommend any corrective action
concerning the contested fitness report, and that it stated you
have “made mistakes” and have “moments of human imperfection.”
In view of the above, your application has been denied. The
names ang 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,

ROBERT J. O'NEILL
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 | 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 | NR9781 14

    Original file (NR9781 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested that the fitness report for 2 June 2012 to 20 June 2013 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS's) letter dated 27 September 2013, by raising the marks in sections E.3 (*Effectiveness-under Stress”), F.2 (“Developing Subordinates”), F.3 (“Setting the Example”) and F.5 (“Communication Skills”) from “D” (fourth best of seven possible marks) to “E” (third best) and lowering the mark in section F.4 (“Ensuring Well-being of Subordinates”) from “EB” to “Za” A...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4256 14

    Original file (NR4256 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested modifying the fitness reports for 13 June 2010 to 31 March 2011 and 1 April to 22 August 2011 in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS‘’s) letter dated 1 May 2013 and the reviewing officer’s (RO’s) endorsement dated 3 May 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, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction...

  • 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 | NR9151 14

    Original file (NR9151 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 20 November 2014. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 1 August 2014, and the advisory opinion from HOQMC dated 8 September 2014, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8902 14

    Original file (NR8902 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 8 January 2015. 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 (HOMC) Performance Fvaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 23 September...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3084 13

    Original file (NR3084 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 10 October 2013. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board’s files on your prior cases, 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9154 14

    Original file (NR9154 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 15 October 2014. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. 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 | 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...