Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9784 14
Original file (NR9784 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
R CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
wo1 S, COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON. VA 22204-2490

JSR

Docket No: NR9784-14
a0 Actoher 2014

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 16 of the
United States Code, section 1552.

You requested that the fitness report for 16 January to 30 June
2005 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s
(RS’s) letter dated 30 May 2014, by raising the mark in section
F.2 (“Developing Subordinates”) from *C* (fifth best of seven
possible marks) to “Db” (fourth best); F.1 (‘beading
Subordinates”) from *C” to “E’” (third best); and D.i
(“Performance”), D.2 (“proficiency”), F.3 ("Setting the
Example’), F.4 (‘Ensuring Well-being of Subordinates”} and F.5
(“communication Skills") from “D” to “E."

BR three-member panel of the Boare for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 30 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 20 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 has been denied. The names and
yotes 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.

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’NETLL
Executive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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...

  • 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 | 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 | CY2008 | 05946-08

    Original file (05946-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested, in effect, that the fitness report for 9 June to 25 August 2006 be modified, in accordance with the reporting (RS’s) letter dated 2 June 2008, by raising the marks senior’s in sections D.1 (“Performance”), D.2 (“Proficiency”), F.2 (“Developing Subordinates”), F.4 (‘Ensuring Well-being of Subordinates”) and G.2 (“Decision Making Ability”) from “D” (fourth best of seven possible marks) to “E” (third best); and section G.1 (“Professional Military Education”) from “E” to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06125-09

    Original file (06125-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    best) to “D.” oO A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 August 2009. 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...