DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
7015S, COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1091
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2480
JSR
Docket No: NR9152-14
26 March 2OLS
‘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 1552.
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. After you had submitted your application, you
failed of selection by the FY 2016 Major Selection Board. It is
presumed you also request removing your failure cf selection by
the FY 2016 promotion board and setting aside action to effect
your discharge on 1 July 2015 by reason of your having SWice
failed of selection for promotion.
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has
directed modifying the contested fitness report by removing,
from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional
Comments”), “With detailed guidance and close supervision,
accomplished assigned tasks to minimally acceptable standards.”
and removing, from section K.4 (reviewing officer’s comments),
“Although he maintained acceptable performance levels, he needed
periodic supervision from the Battalion Executive Officer to
accomplish complex assignments."
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 26 March 2015. 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 (HQMC) Performance
Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 1 August 2014, and the
advisory opinion from HQMC dated 20 January 2015 with enclosure,
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
in finding the contested fitness report, as modified, should
stand. The Board found that neither of your failures of
selection for promotion should be removed. 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.
Since the Board found insufficient basis to remove your failure
of selection by the FY 2015 promotion board, and the
modifications CMC directed to the fitness report in question
were effected on 4 August 2014, before the FY 2016 promotion
board convened on 26 August 2014, the Board found your failure
of selection by the FY 2016 promotion board should stand. As
the Board found insufficient grounds to remove either of your
failures of selection for promotion, it had no basis to set
aside action to effect your discharge. In view of the above,
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
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,
ROBERT J. O’ NEILL
Executive Director
Enclosure
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 | CY2009 | 12153-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 February 2010. 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 | CY2007 | 10212-07
It is presumed you desire removing that failure of selection as well.Concerning the report for 1 August to 1 November 1999, you requested removing from section K.4 (reviewing officer’s (RO’s) comments) the sentences “He has valuable experience from prior MOS~ [military occupational specialty] billets that he needs to apply towards his current MOS.” and “His ground duties managerial/leadership aggressiveness needs to improve.” it is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CNC) has...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03147-11
Petitioner further requested removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) entry dated 19 March 2008, a copy of which is at Tab F. Finally, he requested setting aside the Commandant Of the Marine Corps (CMC)'s revocation dated 8 July 2008 of his selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 First Sergeant Selection Board and promoting him to first sergeant with the lineal precedence he would have had, but for the revocation. The PERB report at enclosure (2) stated that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10175-08
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. Regarding the recommendation, in paragraphs 4.b.ii and 5 of the JAM5 advisory opinion, to amend the commanding officer’s/RO’s letter of 4 May 2006 (among the ericlosures to the HQMC routing sheet dated 10 October 2006) by removing the words “for his civilian conviction,” the Board noted that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08487-10
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted im support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 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. Since the Board found insufficient basis to remove your failure of selection by the FY 2011...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03999-10
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 his naval record be corrected by removing the fitness report for 8 December 2007 to 8 August 2008, a copy of which is at Tab A. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing all remaining references to his NJP of 7 August 2008, to include the following: {1) Unit Punishment Book entry (2) Second sentence,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR10595 14
You requested modifying the fitness report for 16 July 2012 to 31 May 2013 by making section K (reviewing officer's marks and comments) “not observed.” You further requested removing your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year 2015 Major Selection Board. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has irected the requestea modification of the fitness report in R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered...
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 | CY2010 | 08458-10
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed the requested modification of the report for 26 July 2006 to 28 February 2007. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 August 2010. 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.