Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4760 14
Original file (NR4760 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
7O1 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

JSR
Docket No: NR4760-14
12 June 2014

 

Dear Staff Sergeant iy

This ig 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 12 June 2014. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accor@ance 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 {(HOQMC}) Performance
Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 9 April 2014, and the
e-mail from HQOMC dtd 22 April 2014 with attachments, 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. In this connection, the Board substantially
concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB.
The Board found nothing objectionable about the comment, in
section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional

Comments”) of the contested fitness report, that you were
“recommended for relief for cause and void (sic) of [your} 8511
[drill instructor] MOS [military occupational specialty].” In

 

 

SEPARIMENT OF THENAVY
that regard, the Board was unable to find this was a factually
inaccurate statement, and it noted that according to the HQMC
e-mail dated 22 April 2014, you were relieved for cause and your
8511 MOS was removed. In view of the above, your application
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,

Tet Joa

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Wed Nov 29 14_53_31 CST 2000

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 September 1999. In addition, the Board 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 warranting restoration of your drill instructor military occupational specialty (MOS) or your special duty assignment (SDA) pay. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07010-01

    Original file (07010-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 5 September 2001, a copy of which is attached. The Board noted that the contested “CD” (change of duty) fitness report does not indicate you were relieved for cause. Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MASTER SERGEANT USMC factors adversely affected the petitioner's performance and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06056-02

    Original file (06056-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The petitioner has provided nothing to support his claim of injustice or that he was denied an opportunity to appeal the NJP (i.e., NJP occurred and was correctly recorded via the performance evaluation system. However, Petitioner did not appeal his punishment and does not claim that he was denied the right to do so. it is the NJP However, offenses.- C .

  • 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 | NR12003 14

    Original file (NR12003 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board also considered a COPY of your fitness report for 15 January to 2 October 2010, whose removal was directed by the HOMC Performance Evaluation Review Board, and the HOMC e-mail dated 21 November 2014 (the basis for the PERB action), a COPY of which is also attached. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5198 14

    Original file (NR5198 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested removing the fitness reports for 1 January to 25 June 2007, 11 July to 31 December 2009 and 19 May to 31 December 2010. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report for 1 January to 25 June 2007 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “MRO [Marine reported on] is assigned to the Body Composition Program.” and “SECT[ion] A, Item 5a: MRO is currently assigned to the Body...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2725 14

    Original file (NR2725 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 17 April 2014. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 21 February 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 | NR5132 14

    Original file (NR5132 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Tt is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the second sentence in section I (reporting senior's “Directed and Additional Comments”) of the contested report, which reads “MRO [Marine reported on] is a newly promoted Staff Non Commissioned Officer, who performs well ina difficult and demanding billet, but is best suited for a Food Service position in the Operating Forces. ", by changing the comma after the word “billet” to a period, and changing the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5184 14

    Original file (NR5184 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report for 1 July to 12 December 2008 by changing the date in section A, item 3.b (beginning date) from *20080701" to “20081002” {and filing in your record an administrative filler for 1 July to 1 October 2008} and modifying the report for 13 December 2008 to 19 May 2009 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed ana Additional Comments”), all but the first sentence and in section K...

  • 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...