D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E N A V Y
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 N A W ANNEX
WASHINGTON. D C. 20370-5100
SMC
Docket No: 075 1 1-98
23 April 1999
Dear Staff serg-
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.
A three-member pane1,of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 22 April 1999. 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 22 February 1999, 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 q o r t of the PERB. Aciodingly, your icyplicdiu~~ has burl dcrkxl. The naancs 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
and material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board.
regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official
In this
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,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS U N I T E D STATES MARINE CORPS
3 2 8 0 R U S s E L L R O A D
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22 1 3 4 - 5 1 0 3
MMER/ PERB
FEB 2 2 1999
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY
SERGEANT
.I s
ION IN THE CASE OF STAFF
,USMC
Ref:
(a) SSgt
(b) MCO P1610.7D w/Ch 1
DD Form 149 of 24 Sep 98
1. Per MCO 1610.11B, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
with three members present, met on 12 February 1999 to consider
Staff sergean-
Removal of the fitness report for the period 971001 to 971231
(AN) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation
directive governing submission of the report.
petition contained in reference (a) .
2. The petitioner argues that the Reporting Senior based the
evaluation solely on productivity as a recruiter, and not on the
"whole Marine" concept. He also challenges the Reporting
Senior's mark of "daily" observation in Item 18. To support his
appeal, the petitioner cites his official rebuttal to the report
and furnishes copies of prior and subsequent fitness reports.
3. In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a. Notwithstanding the petitioner's argument and beliefs, the
Board does not agree that the fitness report was based solely on
productivity. His primary duty was that of a "recruiter" and the
overall evaluation documents his performance in that regard. The
Board specifically notes that in addition to declining accom-
plishments, the peCitionerfs work ethic and attitude had also
declined (more than just mere "numbers" ) .
b. Since each appraisal chronicles performance during a
finite period, its comparison with prior and subsequent fitness
reports is not considered a valid gauge in determining either
accuracy or validity. The report at issue reflects the degree to
which efforts were expended and the intensity and application of
effort exerted. While the petitioner has expressed his dissatis-
faction and states the report is not fair or accurate, he has not
explained or otherwise documented how his performance rated any
more than what has been recorded.
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF STAFF
SERGEANT
USMc
c. Although the petitioner may have been geographically
separated from the Reporting Senior, the very nature of recruit-
ing duty would ensure that the Commanding Officer/Reporting
Senior was aware of the petitioner's "daily" accomplishments. In
this regard, the Board discerns no error/injustice in the marking
of "daily" in a s Item
18.
.
4. The Board's opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
of Staff S e r g e a n p f f i c i a l military record.
5. The case is forwarded for final action.
valuation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 08472-98
Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY H E A - 4 U A R T L R S U N I T E D STATES M A R I N E CORPS 3 2 8 0 R U S S E...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00030-99
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removal of your contested fitness report for 1 March to 30 September 1993. 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 warranting removal of the remaining contested fitness report, for 1 March 1991 to 26 April 1992. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01967-99
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. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members resent, met on 16 March 1999 to consider Staff Sergean A t i t i o n contained in reference (a). Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03129-99
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 7 May 1999, a copy of which is attached. Notwithstanding the petitioner's statement and the letter from the Reporting Senior, the Board is not convinced that the 1...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01371-99
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 24 February 1999, a copy of which is attached. They noted, in this regard, that you were permitted to submit a rebuttal, despite your initial declination; that the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 08224-98
The Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB in finding that no correction of your fitness report record was warranted. 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. Subsequently, he unsuccessfully petitioned the Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) for removal of the fitness report for the period 970125-970731 and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 07213-98
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested report by changing the mark in item 14a ("endurance") from "above average" to "not observed. " Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE N A W HEADQUARTERS U N I T E D STATES M A R I N E CORPS 3280 R U S S E L L ROAD QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22 1 3 4 - 5 1 0 3 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB 5 Oct 98 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01797-99
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 15 March 1999, 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03156-01
You also made new requests to remove your relief for cause from recruiting duty, which was requested on 5 April 1999; your nonjudicial punishment of 29 March 1999; and your service record page 11 counseling entries dated 17 and 24 February 1999. We are asked to provide an advisory opinion on Petitioner's request for the removal from his Service Record Book (SRB) and his official military personnel file (OMPF) of all references to his nonjudicial punishment (NJP) of 29 March 1999 and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00230-99
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 11 January 1999, a copy of which is attached. Certainly poor management of his supply account, as concluded in the investiga- tion and correctly recorded by the...