Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 08343-98
Original file (08343-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
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 NAVY ANNW 

WASHINGTON DC  20370-51 00 

SMC 
Docket No:  08343-98 
20 May  1999 

Dear 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.  You  requested  removal of 
your  fitness report for  1 March  to  15 September  1997. 

It is noted  that the Commandant of  the Marine Corps (CMC) has  modified  the contested 
fitness report by  changing the entry in  item 5a from "NNNMED" (rifle. qualification not 
required, pistol qualification not  required, not  medically qualified for physical fitness test 
(PFT)) to  "NNA259" (rifle/pistol qualification not required, passed  PFT first class with a 
score of  259), and  removing  the following sentence from section C:  "Marine did not  qualify 
with  service weapon  or run a PFT this fiscal- year." 

A three-member panel of the Board  for Correction of  Naval  Records,  sitting in  executive 
session, considered your  application on  20 May  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 
24 November  1998, 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 warranting complete removal of  the contested report.  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  and 

material evidence or other matter not previously considered by  the Board.  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, 

W.  DEAN PFEIFFER 
Executive Director 

Enclosure 

AEPARTMENT OF T H E  NAVY 

HEADQUARTERS  U N I T E D  STATES M A R I N E   CORPS 

3 2 8 0 R U S S E L L   ROAD 

QUANTICO,  V I R G I N I A   22 1 3 4 - 5  1 0 3  

IN REPLY REFER TO. 
1610 
MMER/ PERB 
24 Nov  98 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF 

NAVAL RECORDS 

Sub j : 

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  (PERB) 
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF 
SERGEAN 

USMC 

Ref: 

(a) sergeant- 
(b) MCO P1610.7D w/Ch 1-3 

DD Form 149 of 2 Oct 98 

1.  Per MCO 1610.11B, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, 
with three members present, met on 19 November 1998 to consider 
petition contained in reference  (a) .  Removal 
sergeant,- 
of the fitness report for the period 970301 to 970915 (CH) was 
requested.  Reference  (b) is the performance evaluation directive 
governing submission of the report. 

2.  The petitioner contends that the report contains incorrect 
information concerning the Reporting Senior's  comments that he 
neither qualified with the service weapon nor completed a 
physical fitness test  (PET) during the fiscal year.  To support 
his appeal, the petitioner furnishes a printout of his Basic 
Training Record  (BTR) from the Marine Corps Total Force System 
(MCTFS) . 

3.  In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that, with minor 
exceptions, the report is administratively correct and 
procedurally complete as written and filed.  The following is 
offered as relevant: 

a.  The MCTFS extract clearly shows that the petitioner 

completed a PFT during July 1997  (within the reporting period) 
and achieved a first class score of 259.  What the MCTFS 
documentation also reveals is that the petitioner did not qualify 
with the service weapon until a f t e r   the  reporting  period  ended. 
Since the petitioner was current with his service weapon 
qualification at the time the report was written, the first two 
letters in Item 5a  (i.e., "NN")  are correct.  That being the 
case, the Board has directed the following modifications to the 
report : 

(1) Item 5a.  Change to read "NNA259" 

(2) Section C.  Elimination of the following sentence: 

"Marine did not qualify with service weapon or run a PFT this 
fiscal year. " 

Subj:  MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  (PERB) 

R

E

ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF 
S

USMC 

b.  The errors associated with information on the PFT and 

service weapon qualification do not impact on the remainder of 
the evaluation.  As such, the Board discerns no justification for 
complete removal of the report. 

4.  The Board's  opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot 
vote, is that the contested fitness report, as modified, should 
remain a part of Sergea 
The limited corrective action identified in subparagraph 3a is 
considered sufficient. 

s official military record. 

5.  The case is forwarded for final action. 

Chairperson, Performance 
Evaluation Review Board 
Personnel Management Division 
Manpower and Reserve Affairs 
Department 
By direction of the Commandant 
of the Marine Corps 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 04790-03

    Original file (04790-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PEW), dated 2 June 2003, a copy of which is attached. (6), concerning section A, item 8b (physical fitness test (PFT)) of the fitness report form, says "Use code 'NMED' [not medically qualified] if the MRO warine reported on] is unable to take or pass the PFT because of a physical (medical) condition." The "NMED" entry in Item 8b of the fitness report, whi.ch is further...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 07213-98

    Original file (07213-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 05106-99

    Original file (05106-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 D Q U A R T E R S U N I T E D S T A T E S M A R I N E C O R P S 3280 RUSSELL R O A D Q U A N T I C O , V I R G I N I A 22 134-5 1 0 3 IN R E P L Y R E F E R TO: 1610 MMER/PERB MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 08224-98

    Original file (08224-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 02618-98

    Original file (02618-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB in finding that your contested adverse fitness report should not be removed. Regardless, the report under Sub j : MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY LIEUTENAN SE OF FIRST USMC consideration is the official report of record and the one to which the petitioner responded. (7) ~ajor- advocacy letter of 23 November 1998 claims he was not aware that the petitioner 'was involved...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01970-99

    Original file (01970-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) officer's comments from both reports. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Board (PERB), dated 16 March 1999, a copy of injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative reg 1 lations and procedures the members of the panel will be...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Fri Nov 03 10_20_27 CST 2000

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has added your rebuttal statement to your contested adverse fitness report for 2 July to 28 September 1992, and removed references to your not having submitted a rebuttal. the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 3 November 1998, a copy of which is attached. in the report of the PERB in finding that your fitness report at issue should stand.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00839-99

    Original file (00839-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He unsuccessfully petitioned the Performance Evaluation Review Branch (PERB) to remove a Grade Change fitness report for the period 960801'to 970317. requests removal of his failure of selection on the FY99 USMC record and 3. ~ieutena-averall Value and Distribution contains two officers ranked above him and none below.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 07244-03

    Original file (07244-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The Board was unable to find the contested fitness report was in reprisal for your request mast. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08376-02

    Original file (08376-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 23 September 2002 with attachment, a copy of which is attached. They also noted that the Marine Corps Total Force System entry in the report of the 2001; attached to the the contested fitness report for 1 March 2001 to 18 February 2002 stated you were removed on 20 December 2001. PERB report showed you were assigned to weight control on 17 January It is regretted...