Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR13149 14
Original file (NR13149 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR COPRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 5S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

Hp
Docket No: NRi3149-14
15 January 2015

 

Dear Staff Sergeant

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 completely removing the fitness report Lor
1 October 2012 to 30 September 2013.

Tt ig noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has
directed modifying the contested report by removing section K
(reviewing officer marks and comments) .

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 15 January 2015. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed an 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,
reguiations and policies, In addition, the Board considered the
report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation
Review Board (PERB), dated 8 December 2014, 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 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. 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 | CY2014 | NR12997 14

    Original file (NR12997 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 22 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. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR13148 14

    Original file (NR13148 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has Girected modifying the contested report by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional comments”), “MRO [Marine reported on] requires supervision for daily tasks outside the norm and of a more complex nature." Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval recoré and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9152 14

    Original file (NR9152 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2015 | NR1053 15

    Original file (NR1053 15.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 3 February 2015, 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR11236 14

    Original file (NR11236 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 29 January 2015. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 30 September 2014, a copy of which is attached. 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 | NR11663 14

    Original file (NR11663 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is note@ that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “Future assignment should be within a unit whose mission allows further development of [your] mobility knowledge and sharpening of fyour] leadership sl:ilis.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 February 2015. New...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8735 14

    Original file (NR8735 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 18 July and 24 November 2014, 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2015 | NR1054 15

    Original file (NR1054 15.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    JSR . Docket No: NR1O54-15 DN awed 1 ONTe dar ape tt tee tet ol 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 completely removing the fitness report for 23 May to 31 December 2007.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR11964 14

    Original file (NR11964 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested completely removing the fitness report tor 14 June to 31 October 2012. your applicacio ogether with all material submivrec Ath support thereo applicable statutes, regulations anc ft the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 27 October 2014, a copy of which is attached. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. Consequently, when...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3237 14

    Original file (NR3237 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 May 2014. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 12 March 2014, a copy of which is attached. 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.