DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
JSR
Docket No, NR&390-14
9 April 2015
Dear Staff Sergeant piel:
This is in reference to your application dated 29 July 2014, seeking
reconsideration of your previous application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United
States Code; section 1552. You again requested removing the fitness
report for 1to 30 January 2008. In your previous case, docket number —
NR3114-13, the Board denied this relief on 18 July 2013.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 9 April 2015.
Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance
with administrative reguiations and procedures applicable to the
proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the
Board consisted of your application, together with ail material
submitted in support thereof, the Board’s files on your most recent
prior case and docket number 8119-12 (concerning the service record
page 11 entry dated 17 November 2011), your naval record and
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The Board also
considered the advisory opinion from Headquarters Marine Corps
(HOMC) dated 16 October 2014 and the report of the HQMC Performance
Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 3 February 2015, 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 advisory opinion and the report of the PERB.
Accordingly, the Board again voted to deny relief. 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 evidence within one
year from the date of the Board’s decision. New evidence is evidence
not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision
in this case. 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,
R@BERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1703 14
In your previous case, docket number 10449-08, the Board denied this relief on 23 January 2009. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 10 April 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 | CY2013 | NR2999 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 18 September 2014. The Board also considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 18 February 2014 and the advisory opinion from HQMC dated 3 July 2034, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9152 14
You requested completely removing the fitness report for 5 April to 30 November 2007, and you impliedly requested removing your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 20615 Major Selection Board. In this regard, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion in finding your selection by the FY 2015 promotion board would have been definitely unlikely, even if your record had reflected the modifications CMC has directed to the fitness report at issue. Consequently, when:...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9159 14
The Board and 18 December 2014 with also considered your y 2015 with enclosu enclosures, 9 Januar Information act reply dated 6 October 20 the command investigation dated 1 August with enclosures - applicatio injustice were regulations 4m 2014, copies ° 4 with redacted copy of 2013) and 6 March 2015 sideration of the entire itted was bable material ious con he ‘evidence subm tablish the existence of pro In this connection, the Board substantially omments contained in the reports of the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6179 14
This request was denied on 30 September 2013. #, three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 22 January 2015. 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 | NR8208 14
You again requested removal of the fitness report for 3 June to 2 September 2011. In your previous case, docket number 1076-12, this ~equest was denied on 26 April 2012. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board's file on your previous case, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies..
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08069-02
In your current application, you again request removing the original report, but you also add a new request to replace it with a revised report the reporting senior has submitted for the pertinent period. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report. Nothing has been furnished with reference (a) that documents any factual errors associated with the fitness report - Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08633-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 3 September 2009. Further, the Board noted that the modification of this report directed by PERB in your previous case was implemented on 7 August 2007, before the FY 2009 Lieutenant Colonel. 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 | NR9949 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 January 2015. 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 demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4712 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 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...