DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
JSR
Docket No: NR977-13
21 March 2013
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 fitness reports for 1 March to 30
September 2005 and 1 October 2005 to 1 April 2006 be modified in
accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 14
BRugueat 2012. In. the report for 1 March to 30 Séptember 2005,
you requested raising the marks in sections F.1 (“Leading
Subordinates”) and F.3 (“Setting the Example”) from “D” (fourth
best of seven possible marks) to “E” (third best). In the
report for 1 October 2005 to 1 April 2006, you requested raising
the marks in sections D.1 (“Performance”) and H.1
(“Evaluations”) from “D"” to ‘E.*"
A three-tiember panel of the Board for Corréction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 21 March 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 Performance Evaluation
Review Board (PERB), dated 24 January 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 comments contained in the report of the PERB.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon
request...
Although the Board voted not to modify either of the fitness
reports in question, you may submit the RS’s letter to future
selection boards.
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 D. 4SALMAN
Acting Executive Director
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06125-09
best) to “D.” oO A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 August 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...
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 | CY2005 | 10223-05
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:10223-0516 April 2007This 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, in effect, that the fitness report for 1 October 2000 to 31 May 2001 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 3 January 2005, by raising the marks in sections...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01527-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 July 2008. 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 | CY2006 | 00625-06
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 19 January 2006, 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 comments contained in the report of the PERB. consequently,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07208-06
Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 2 August 2006 to consider Lieutenant Colon ‘ petition contained in reference (a). He provides an advocacy letter from the reporting senior that states, “these changes will better reflect his (MRO’s) overall performance as it relates to my cumulative average on reports written on majors.” He also requests that seven attribute markings be changed on the fitness report covering the period 20020611 to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02605-07
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:2605-076 April 2007This 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, in effect, that the fitness report for19 August 2005 to 21 April 2006 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 4 September 2006, by raising the marks in sections...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4256 14
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 | CY2014 | NR5248 14
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 | CY2007 | 02818-07
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 20 March 2007, a copy of which is attached. the Marine that were not known when the original report was prepared.” The Board found that the reporting senior’s advocacy letter does not explain how the five attribute marks of “D” are inaccurate and in error. The reviewing officer’s letter offers no explanation of what specifically about the petitioner’s performance...