Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4734 14
Original file (NR4734 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
7016S, COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 190%
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

JSR
Docket No: NR4734-14

5 June 2014

 

Dear Stafff Sergeant aay

your application

This is in reference to
he provisions of title 10 of the

naval record pursuant to t
United States Code, section 1552.

You requested completely removing Addendum Page 2 of 2 from your
fitness report for 7 October 2010 to 25 April 2011.

It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has
directed modifying the contested Addendum Page by removing “In
fact, I would rank [you] among the pottom 1/2 of all Marine
Sergeants I have observed over the past 22 years of service.”

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval

Records, sitting in executive session, considered your

application on 5 June 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
report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation
Review Board (PERB), dated 2 April 2014, a copy of which is

attached.

d conscientious consideration of the entire

found that the evidence suomitted was
tablish the existence of probable material
In this comnection, the Board substantially

comments contained in the report of the PERB.

After careful an
record, the Board
insufficient to €s
error or injustice.
concurred with the
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,

Oa SS

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2726 14

    Original file (NR2726 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    dln addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 24 February 2014, a copy of which is attached. The Board found the letter from while complimentary to you, did not refute the grounds for your relief reflected in the contested fitness report. 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 | NR2786 14

    Original file (NR2786 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decumentary 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. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4255 14

    Original file (NR4255 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    fitness report meets the criteria for derogatory material in Sect A, Item 6B and is rendered adverse IAW [in accordance with] MCO [Marine Corps Order] P1610.7F. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC)} Performance Evaluation Review Board {PERB}), dated 31 March 2014 as amended by the HOMC e-mail dated 10 April 2014 with attachments, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7243 14

    Original file (NR7243 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested completely removing the fitness report for 1 April to 25 June 2012. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 5 June 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 | CY2001 | 07130-01

    Original file (07130-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed fitness report for 1 October 1998 to 19 April 1999 be amended by adding officer’s Addendum Page dated 26 June 2001. that the contested the third sighting A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 October 2001. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB),...

  • 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 | NR7247 14

    Original file (NR7247 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    and by removing “Directed Comment, Sectfion] A, Item Tb: recommend that the MRO [Marine reported on] not be considered for promotion with his contemporaries.” 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5207 14

    Original file (NR5207 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 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 | CY2002 | 06881-99

    Original file (06881-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    They were unable to find how, if at all, his report influenced your nonjudicial punishment or your removal from the 1998 staff sergeant selection list, nor could they find how he changed his opinions following the review of his report by the CO. We reviewed Sergeant documents concerning his Administrative Remarks page 11 entries dated 980804 and 981125, Offenses and Punishment page 12 entry dated 990311 and CMC letter 1450/3 MMPR-2 dated 2. In view of the above, it is recommended...

  • 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...