Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9352 14
Original file (NR9352 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
JSR
Docket No: NR9352-14
15 October 2014 —

 

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 1
January to 31 December 2013.

It igs noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has
directed modifying the contested report by removing, from
section K.4 (reviewing officer's comments), “Recommend [you] be
retained until [you reach] eligibility for retirement in current
grade.”

R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 15 October 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 5 August 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 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
Fxecutive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9351 14

    Original file (NR9351 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “I anticipate SNM [Subject Named Marine] will be removed from BCP [Body Composition Program] and be an asset to my command.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 October 2014. New evidence is evidence not...

  • 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 | CY2014 | NR5265 14

    Original file (NR5265 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Tt is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”) of the contested report for 30 September 2022 to 25 June 2013 by removing the word “capable” from the First sentence and in the fifth sentence, changing the comma after the word “complete” to a period and removing “MRO [Marine reported on] should attend MOS [military occupational specialty] school at first opportunity.” and modifying section...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9150 14

    Original file (NR9150 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It ig 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”), "MRO [Marine reported on] best performs in an environment working for staif noncommissioned officers and senior enlisted Marines who can supervise her daily tasks so as to ensure details are adhered to and timeliness is attained.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9353 14

    Original file (NR9353 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 15 October 2014. 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 | 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 | CY2014 | NR1698 14

    Original file (NR1698 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive sessicn, considered your application on 10 April 2014. 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. 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 | NR10596 14

    Original file (NR10596 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “MRO [Marine reported on] being assigned to the BCP [Body Composition Program] “ A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2014 Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9945 14

    Original file (NR9945 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 4 September 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. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5200 14

    Original file (NR5200 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your 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 material error or injustice.