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 ANNEX
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20370-5100
BJG
Docket No: 230-99
19 April 1999
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the
provisions of title 10, United States Code, section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 15 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
11 January 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 report of the PERB. They were unable to find that you were unfairly evaluated
because you were perceived as having a problem with weight control. In this regard, they
noted that your contested fitness report is marked "excellent" in "personal appearance" (item
14b). In view of the above, your application 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
JEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS U N I T E D STATES M A R I N E CORPS
OR OR US SELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22 134-5 103
IN REPLY REFER TO.
1610
MMER/PERB
JAN : l 1999
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISOR
SERGEAN
N 0
THE CASE OF STAFF
USMC
Ref:
(a) SSg-
(b) MCO ~ 1 6 1 0 . 7 ~ w/Ch 1-3
DD Form 149 of 27 Aug 98
1. Per MCO 1610.11B, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
with three members present, met on 6 January 1999 to consider
Staff Serge-
petition contained in reference (a).
Removal of the fitness report for the period 970101 to 971017
(TR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation
directive governing submission of the report.
2. The petitioner disclaims counseling concerning performance
deficiencies, insufficient time between counseling and receipt of
the adverse fitness report at issue, and inappropriate remarks
concerning the JAG investigation. To support his appeal, the
petitioner furnishes his own statement, a copy of a prior fitness
report, a copy of an official counseling entry, a copy of a prior
version of the fitness report at issue (containing a different
ending date), and a letter from First serges-
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. Per subparagraph 2003.3f of reference (b), performance
counseling is to be continuous throughout the reporting period
and the petitioner does not substantiate that he was not
counseled by his Reporting Senior as deficiencies occurred. The
timing of the Page 11 entry does not mean or otherwise prove that
prior counseling was not conducted. Lieutenant Colonel
could not have counseled the petitioner on the deficiencies
uncovered by the JAG Manual supply investigation since he
apparently had no previous certainties of those specific
findings .
b. The petitioner fails to prove the JAG Manual investiga-
tion did not find him negligent or at fault. Certainly poor
management of his supply account, as concluded in the investiga-
tion and correctly recorded by the Reporting Senior, is a
Subj : MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF STAFF
reportable deficiency. In his own rebuttal, the petitioner
acknowledged the facts of the adversity in the report, offered
opinions in extenuation and mitigation, and pledged in his
concluding comments to correct his substandard performance.
c. The unsubstantiated accusations made by First Sergeant
ail to identify, by name, the "leaders" who allegedly
treated the petitioner in an unjust manner. Simply stated, his
allegations have no credibility.
4. The Board's opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
of Staff Sergeant
fficial 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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08253-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 3 1 October 2001, 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. d. e. f. g - Including paraphrased statements from the JAG manual investigations is precluded by reference (b) The JAG manual investigation was...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03760-99
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 7 June 1999, and the memorandum furnished by HQMC dated 25 August 1999, copies of which are attached. c. First Sergean explanations into is no excuse for Officer and Adverse Sighting Officer. Contrary to the information included in subparagraph 3b of reference (b), further research indicates that the Adverse Sighting Officer (Lieutenant Colone fitness...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 02992-99
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested fitness report by completely eliminating the reviewing officer's certification. 'ARTMENT OF T H E NAVY HEADQUARTERS U N I T E D STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 R U S S E L L ROAD QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22 1 3 4 - 5 1 0 3 1610 MAY - 3 1999 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOhtid FOR CORRECTION OF IN REPLY REFER TO: NAVAL RECORDS Subj : MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 02525-99
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. 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 l6lO.llC, the Performance Evalu,~tion Review Board, with three members present, met on 9 April 1999 to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00211-99
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 20 January 1999, a copy of which is attached. In his letter appended to reference (a), the Reporting Senior states that the Section C comments reflect a true...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 02799-99
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Perfofmance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 25 April 1999, a copy of which is attached. Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF GUNNERY SERGEA c. Contrary to the petitioner's argument, the Board does not view the report as focusing on "one isolated incident." d. While the observations of Sergea Roundtree are certainly supportive and c...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01303-99
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. 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 1610.11B, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 12 February 1999 to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01555-99
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 3 March 1999, a copy of which is attached. V I R G I N I A 22 134-5 103 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/ PERB MAR 3 1999 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 STAFF SERGEAY , USMC Ref: (a) SSgt- (b) MCO P1610.7C...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00836-02
Not withstanding the requirement to report the petitioner's unfortunate failing, of his overall performance and with a most positive "word picture" in Section I. nothing in this process was a quick the report appears to be a fair evaluation Contrary to the Both officers and failing to properly execute that bf enclosure (6) to reference (a), In paragraph seven I MEF clearly holds the petitioner responsible toward C . The petitioner is correct that paragraph 5005 of reference (a) requires the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00130-99
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. S u b j : MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) HE CASE OF USMC The case is forwarded for final action.