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
BJG
Docket No: 1303-99
19 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, 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
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 report of the PERB.
The Board was unable to find that your reporting senior did not counsel you about the areas
of your performance with which he was dissatisfied. In any event, they generally do not
grant relief on the basis of an absence of counseling, since counseling takes many forms, so
the recipient may not recognize it as such when it is provided. The Board was unable to find
that your marks were based on a "personal disagreement" you had with your reporting senior.
Finally, they were unable to find that the wrong officer acted as your reviewing officer on the
contested fitness report for 1 October to 16 December 1996.
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
DEPARTMENT 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
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Sub j :
Ref:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
N THE CASE OF STAFF
USMC
(a) SSgt .-
(b) MCO P1610.7D
(c) MCO P1610.7D w/Ch 1
DD Form 149 of 2 Nov 98
1. Per MCO 1610.11B, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
with three members present, met on 12 February 1999 to consider
Staff Sergeant
Removal of the following fitness reports was requested:
.petition contained in reference (a).
a. Report A - 950617 to 951228 (TD) -- reference (b) applies
b. Report B - 961001 to 961216 (CH) -- reference (c) applies
2. The petitioner contends that both reports are inconsistent
with reporting procedures in that the Reporting Senior never
counseled him on his dissatisfaction with areas of performance
(i.e., the items in Section B wherein he was marked 'excellent").
With specific regard to Report B, the petitioner alleges that
Captai
vice First ~ieutenan-
petitioner furnishes copies of the fitness reports at issue, as
well as subsequent reports.
. functioned as the Reviewing Officer,
To support his appeal, the
hould have
.
3. In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that both reports are
administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and
filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a. Contrary to the petitioner's beliefs and arguments,
neither report reflects any "inconsistent reporting procedures."
Likewise, the Board stresses that a Reporting Senior is under no
obligation to grade a subsequent report in the same manner as the
previous one was graded. There is no presumption of consistency
- - only the individual by his or her steadfast performance can
guarantee that consistency. Since each report is for a finite
period, fluctuations in grades are presumed to be nothing more
than a measure of degree in what areas the intensity and
application of effort were required. There are simply no
apparent reporting deficiencies with the petitioner's overall
performance during the period covered.
the petitioner's
Sub j : MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY
SERGEANT
THE CASE OF STAFF
USMC
disclaimer to detailed "counseling" on "dissatisfaction" with
performance is considered without merit.
b. To justify the deletion or amendment of a performance
evaluation, evidence of probable error or injustice should be
produced. There is no such showing in this case.
4. The Board's opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that the contested fitness reports should remain a part
of Staff sergean-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
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01983-99
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 18 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 | CY1999 | 00035-99
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 23 December 1998, a copy of which is attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
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 | CY2001 | 04891-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 15 June 2001, a copy of which is attached. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 13 June 2001 to consider Staff Sergeant-s petition contained in reference (a). Lieutenant Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY SERGEANT THE CASE OF STAFF USMC 2 Reviewing Officer) went into great...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 02227-99
The Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) reviewed the petition and denied the request. (3) This report also did not appear before the FY98 Board. e. Written comments by Reporting Seniors and Reviewing Officers.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01970-99
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 | CY1998 | 08343-98
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. 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. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 07511-98
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. 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. His primary duty was that of a "recruiter" and the overall evaluation documents his performance in...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01984-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 April 1999. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 18 March 1999, a copy of which is attached. c. While the petitioner may believe the report at issue has hindered her promotional opportunities, the Board is quick to point out that "non-competitive" and "adverse" are...
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...