DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 5. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1601
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
JSR
Docket No: NR8176-14
wal a
aa Oeab es a4 aA
Lae Wop ee ChbeL aoviz
Dear Sergeant Ay
This is in reference to’y
naval record pursuant to the provisions of tit
United States Code, section 1552.
our application for correction of your
le 10 of the
You requested modifying the fitness report for 13 December 2012
to ¢ April 2013 by removing, from section I (reporting senior
(RS}'s “Directed and Additional Comments” } , with a sense of
dedication and responsibility, he was able to attain a degree of
from section
expertise in these assigned duties.” and removing,
K.4 (reviewing officer (RO)'s comments) , “pS igs strict grader.
Concur with tone of section I comments." You also requested
completely removing the fitness report for 23 May to 31 July
2013 or, if it cannot be removed, modifying it by removing, from
section I, “[¥You] ranked 7 of 7 amongst [your} peers during this
reporting period.” and with little more focus, self-motivation,
and sense of pride in [your] duties [you] will execute above
[your] belt level.” and removing, from section K.4, “RS
markings, while not overly flattering, must also be taken in the
context of his strict grading practice with respect to his Sgt
[sergeant] RS profile.”
Tt is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has
directed modifying the fitness report for 25 May to 31 July 2013
by marking section A, item 5.0 (*Not Observed”); removing the
mark from section A, item 7 a (*Recommended for Promotion ~
ves"); entering a mark in section A, item 7.¢ (“Recommended for
Promotion - N/A [not applicable]”) ; removing pages 2, 3 and 4;
removing section 1; marking section K.1 (RO'S observation)
“Insufficient” rather than “Sufficient”; removing the marks from
sections K.2 (RO'S concurrence with RS) and K.3 (RO'S
“Comparative Agsessment”); and removing section K.4.
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 thie
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.
Since the Board agreed with the PERB concerning the RS comments
in the fitness report for 13 December 2012 to 9 April 2013, it
found no basis for removing the RO comments to which you object.
In view of the above, your application for relief beyond or
other than that effected by CMC has been denied. The names and
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon
request.
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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4252 14
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed the requested changes to the marks in sections E.2, F.1 and G.1. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 May 2014. 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 | CY2008 | 10350-08
concurred with the rd also considered your rebuttal letter dated ith enclosure. The Board could not find the reviewing officer (RO) lacked sufficient lobservation to evaluate you, noting observation need not be direct. 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 | CY2009 | 06116-09
You also requested completely removing the fitness report for 15 November 2004 to 30 May 2005 and modifying the report for 1 June to l September 2005 by removing the entire section K (RO marks and comments) or, if that modification is denied, raising the mark in section K.3. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing all the contested comments from sections I and K.4 of the report for 14 June to 3 August 2004; modifying the report for 15 November 2004 to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7247 14
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 | CY2013 | NR9184 13
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 58. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by modifying the fitness report for 1 July 2012 to 31 March 2013 (copy at Tab A), in accordance with the reviewing officer (RO)’s letter of 22 May 2013 (at enclosure (1)), by raising the mark in section K.3...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03521-09
However, in only 60 days since the end of his last reporting period, I cannot say that he has moved up in his peer ranking.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 June 2009. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 1 April 2009, a copy of which is attached. Removal of the fitness reports for the periods 19990101...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02424-08
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. The Board found the fitness report for 1 January to 21 May 2007 should stand, though it disagreed with the PERB position that the removal of the report for 3 November to 31 December 2006 nullified your objection to not having been counseled before your mark in section G.2 (“Decision Making...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06373-06
Specifically concerning the contested section K of the fitness report for 2 September 2000 to 5 March 2001, the Board found the mark in section K.3, the second lowest of eight possible marks, did not require marking section K.2 (“Evaluation”) “Do Not Concur [with reporting senior].” The Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion from MMOA-4 in concluding your selection by the FY 2007 Major Selection Board would have been definitely unlikely, even if the correction directed by...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR11236 14
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 | NR4761 14
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...