DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
7971S. COURTHOUSE ROAD SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
HD
Docket No: NR11369-14
21 November 2014
Dear First Sergeant ay
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 removing the service record page dk.
(“Administrative Remarks (1070)") entry aated 30 October 9013)
and your rebuttal dated 1 November 2013, as well as the fitness
report for 1 TuLy to 25 October 2013. The page 11 entry was not
considered, as the attached e-mail dated 28 October 2014 from
Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) shows that neither the entry
nor your rebuttal appears in your Official Military Personnel
File.
A three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 20 November 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
advisory opinions from HOMC dated 26 Bugust and 18 September
2014, and the report of the HOMC performance Evaluation Review
Board (PERB), dated 30 September 2014, copies of which
attached. The Board also considered your counsel's le
dated 15 October and 14 November 2014.
HK
@
an
a
-
L
+
er
™
ideration of the enti
re
after careful and conscientious cons
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 opinions and the report of the PERB
in concluding that the contested fitness report should stand.
gt eerlar your application has peen denied. The names and
Accoraingl.y, yes Seen
yotes 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
- evidence within one year from the date of the Board’s decision.
New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board
prior to making its gecision in this case. In this regard, it
is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity
attaches to all official records . consequently, when applying
f an official naval record, the burden is on
for a correction oO
e of probable material
the applicant to demonstrate the existenc
error or injustice.
Sincerely,
ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director
Enclosure
Copy to:
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 | NR5207 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your — application on 18 September 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8532 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 July 2014. in addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 18 October 2013, the e- Mail from HQMC dated 19 November 2013, and the advisory opinions from HOMC dated 25 March 2014 with enclosure and 8 May 2014, copies of which are attached, - After careful and conscientious...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8278 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 August 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 | CY2014 | NR8890 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 9 April 2015. 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. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7884 14
BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on § January 2015. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board dated 18 June 2014, the e-mail from HOMC dated 7 July 2014, and the advisory opinions from HOMC dated 2 September and 6 October 2014, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8499 13
You requested removing the fitness report for 14 February to 10 June 2011 and your two rebuttals, each dated 8 June 2011, to the service record page 11 ("Administrative Remarks (1070)") entries dated 25 May and 1 June 2011, respectively. Rh three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 April 2015. Since the Board found insufficient grounds to remove either of your failures of selection for promotion, it had...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4746 14
A three-member panel of ‘the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 August 2014. 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 report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board dated 2 April 2014, the e-mail from HQMC dated...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR332 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 24 October 2013. In view of the above, the Board again voted to deny the requested relief. 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 | CY2009 | 02684-09
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the contested fitness report. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 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.