Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8179 14
Original file (NR8179 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
9701S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE toot
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

JSR
Docket No: NR8179-14
11 September 2014

 

Dear Sergeant Ey *

rg

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
haval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the
United States Code, section 1552.

ey
,
we

You requested that the fitness report for 1 October 2010 to 30
September 2011 be modified, in accordance with the reporting
senior’s (R¢’s) letter dated 18 December 2013, by raising the
mark in section D.1 (“Performance”) from “C” (fifth best of
seven possible marks) to “EB” (third best); and raising the marks
in sections E.1 (“Courage”), F.5 (“Communication Skills”) and
G.1 (Professional Military Education”) from “D” (fourth best)
to “EL”

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 11 September 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 3 July 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 has been denied. The names and
votes of the: members of the panel will be furnished upon
request.

Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report in
question, you may submit the RS‘s letter to future selection

boards.

Tt 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 | NR4256 14

    Original file (NR4256 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested modifying the fitness reports for 13 June 2010 to 31 March 2011 and 1 April to 22 August 2011 in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS‘’s) letter dated 1 May 2013 and the reviewing officer’s (RO’s) endorsement dated 3 May 2013. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR10695 14

    Original file (NR10695 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DErARIMWEMN! Ur the RAY T PAAR PARP FRM PFr Ee TION Ae NAN Se preompr 701 5, COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 100i ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Dear Master ‘

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9781 14

    Original file (NR9781 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested that the fitness report for 2 June 2012 to 20 June 2013 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS's) letter dated 27 September 2013, by raising the marks in sections E.3 (*Effectiveness-under Stress”), F.2 (“Developing Subordinates”), F.3 (“Setting the Example”) and F.5 (“Communication Skills”) from “D” (fourth best of seven possible marks) to “E” (third best) and lowering the mark in section F.4 (“Ensuring Well-being of Subordinates”) from “EB” to “Za” A...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00682-11

    Original file (00682-11.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 February 2011. 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 | NR8902 14

    Original file (NR8902 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 8 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, In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) Performance Fvaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 23 September...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9784 14

    Original file (NR9784 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 20 August 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. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1148 14

    Original file (NR1148 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 23 January and i8 July 2014, copies of which are attached, and your letter dated 6 February 2014 with enclosures. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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 | NR5248 14

    Original file (NR5248 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 26 June 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 | NR5920 14

    Original file (NR5920 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navai Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 July 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 | CY2012 | 08548 12

    Original file (08548 12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 October 2012. 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...