Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9945 14
Original file (NR9945 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARIMEN! Sr TRE NAVY

= wht PECN e
& SOP TOPPECTION mr NSW ee RPFCORNED

701 S,. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

JSR
Docket No: NR9945-14
4 December 2014

 

Dear Staff Sergeant Sea

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 e& the
United States Code, section 1552.

You requested completely removing the fitness report for 1
October 2011 to 8 June 2012.

It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has
directed modifying the contested report by removing, rr
section K.4 (reviewing officer’s comments), “[You were] not

within standard for the last reporting period, but due to an
administrative oversight and lack of a medical officer, [your]

ram] package was not officially

Q w@

BCP [Body Composition Pro
submitted.”

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 4 December 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 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. 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. oO’ NEILL
Executive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9944 14

    Original file (NR9944 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    "; removing, from the justification for the mark in section G.3, “MRO received a 6105"; removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), Sect[ion] A, Item 6b: MRO received a 6105 for an alcohol related incident that occurred on 8 Nov 2013.” and removing, from section k.4 (reviewing officer's comments), *,imdicated in the 6105 counseling,”. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9352 14

    Original file (NR9352 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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 | NR5198 14

    Original file (NR5198 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested removing the fitness reports for 1 January to 25 June 2007, 11 July to 31 December 2009 and 19 May to 31 December 2010. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report for 1 January to 25 June 2007 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “MRO [Marine reported on] is assigned to the Body Composition Program.” and “SECT[ion] A, Item 5a: MRO is currently assigned to the Body...

  • 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 | NR7243 14

    Original file (NR7243 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested completely removing the fitness report for 1 April to 25 June 2012. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 5 June 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 | 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 | 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 | NR9152 14

    Original file (NR9152 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | NR8411 14

    Original file (NR8411 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 5. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1007 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2480 JSR Docket No: NR8&413-14 “~ ca a oA: = a Z4 oud ¥ 2014 Dear Staff Sergeant

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4761 14

    Original file (NR4761 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...