Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5200 14
Original file (NR5200 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD TOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DG 20376-5100
JSR
Docket No: NR5200-14

26 June 2014

 

 

Dear Staff Sergeant “a,

This is in reference to your application
naval record pursuant to the provisions
United States Code, section 1552.

You requested removing the fitness reports for 5 October to 31

December 2011 and 1 January to 31 May 2012.

andant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has

It is noted that the Comm
tested report for 5 October to 314

directed removing the con
December 2011.

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

Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
2014. Your allegations of error and

dg in accordance with administrative

he 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 21 April 2014, a COpy of which is

attached.

scientious consideration of the entire

After careful and con
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
ial

insufficient to establish the existence of probable matera
-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,

Rt So

ROBERT D,. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5208 14

    Original file (NR5208 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report for 1 January to 2 June 2008 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s ‘Directed and Additional Comments”), “not letting past mistakes bring him or his work down.” R 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,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08575-09

    Original file (08575-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    29 March to 31 July 2001: “-With continued growth and development will do extremely well.” 2. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed the requested modification of the report for 1 February to 24 May 2002; and directed that the report for 25 May to 19 December 2002 be modified by removing both the language whose removal you expressly requested and the following immediately preceding language, to which you did not expressly object: “Gaining a grasp on his role...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02684-09

    Original file (02684-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.

  • 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 | NR4761 14

    Original file (NR4761 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has Girected modifying the contested report for 28 April to 31 December 2011 by removing, from section K.4 (reviewing officer's (RO’s) comments), “MRO [Marine reported on] continues to develop and hone skills required to effectively support Special Operations Marines in combat operations.” and further directed removing the entire section K (RO’s marks and comments) from each of the other three reports at issue. A three-member panel...

  • 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 | CY2009 | 09809-09

    Original file (09809-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You further requested that these reports, as well as the report for 31 October 2007 to 30 June 2008, be modified by adding, to section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “MRO [Marine reported on] meets Physical Evaluation criteria in MCO [Marine Corps Order] 6100.12, and is within standards.” Finally, you requested removing your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year 2010 Active Reserve Colonel Selection Board, and granting you special selection board consideration...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9149 14

    Original file (NR9149 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Tt is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the contested fitness report for 1 July 2010 to-16 May 2011. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 October 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, In...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11418-09

    Original file (11418-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 2010. : | 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, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR10589 14

    Original file (NR10589 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Orr THE WAVY F Ee : CORRECTION OF NAVAL RE CORDS uu INGTON, VA 22204-2420 JSR Docket No: NR10589-14 4 Decemper 2014 Dear Colonel ee * : 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 L552 » You requested % that the fitness report for 7 December 2009 to 21 July 2010 be modified by removing the entire section K (reviewing officer’s (RO’S) marks and comments) . New evidence is evidence not...