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 DC 20370-5100
SMC
Docket No: 01371-99
22 July 1999
G""
1
Dear Gunnery 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 panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 22 July 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 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 noted you allege that your initial election not to make a rebuttal to the contested
fitness report resulted from your supervisor's persuasion, and your command's failure to
advise you that you had five days to draft a rebuttal. You further allege that your supervisor
criticized you for wanting to draft a rebuttal. Even if these allegations are correct, the Board
was unable to find your ability to make an effective rebuttal was impaired. They noted, in
this regard, that you were permitted to submit a rebuttal, despite your initial declination; that
the rebuttal has been filed in your record with the report to which it related; and that your
rebuttal was dated 1 November 1996, only one month after the reporting period.
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 THE NAVY
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, V l R C l r l l ~ 22 1 3 4 - 5 1 0 3
1610
MMER/PERB
FEB 2 4 1999
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
IN REPLY R E F E R TO:
NAVAL RECORDS
Subi: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVACUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
d
ADVISORY OPINION
GUNNERY SERGEANT
ASE OF
SMC
Ref:
(a) GyS-
(b) MCO P1610.7D w/Ch 1
- 3
DD Form 149 of, 10 1Npv 98
1. Per MCO 1610.11Br the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
with three members present, met on 19 F.ebruary 1999 to consider
Gunnery Sergean
Removal of the e r e p o r t for the period 960501 to 960930
(TD) was requested. ~eference (b) is the performance evaluation
directive governing submission of the report.
petition contained in reference (a).
2. The petitioner contends the report was based upon a "quota
system" and his leadership was evaluated on that premise. To
support his appeal, the petitioner cites prior and subsequent
performance and furnishes a letter from Master Sergean-
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. When the petitioner initially acknowledged the adverse
nature of the report, he opted to omit a statement of rebuttal.
However, a month later a rebuttal was submitted and reviewed by
the Commandins General, Marine Corps Recruit Depot/Western
. ~ l t h o u ~ h some
Recruiting Regio
Commanding General
training shortfa
nevertheless confirmed the petitioner's leadership failures.
b. The petitioner's claim that his Marine and his Recruiting
Substation were recruiter and substation of the month for May
1996, respectively, is not doubted. That, however, was only one
month out of a five-month period and not enough to overcome the
overall adversity recorded in the fitness report.
c. The petitioner does not substantiate or document that the
report was based solely on achieving recruiting quotas. Surely
making mission is the purpose of recruiting, but the evaluation
also speaks of a lack of resolve, desire, and execution of basic
leadership principles.
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
d. Master serges- letter of 15 July 1998 does
not invalidate the truth or accuracy of the evaluation under
consideration. He was neither the Reporting Senior nor the
Reviewing Officer; nor does he substantiate how he was in a
better position to judge and evaluate the petitioner than those
individuals. He claims the petitioner did not receive proper
training. However, that begs the fact that the petitioner
graduated from Recruiters School and served 14 months immediately
prior to the challenged report as an apparent successful
recruiter, and under the same Reporting Senior.
4. The Board's opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
of Gunnery S e r g e y f f i c i a l military record.
The case is forwarded for final action.
ance
valuation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05106-99
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. 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 | CY1999 | 03415-99
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. It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of p--+able material error or injustice.
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 | 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 | 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 | CY2002 | 08312-01
: MEMORANDUM'FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: E CASE OF GUNNERY SERG USMCR Sergea Gunnery 1. has been reviewed concerning his request for removal of the Administrative Remarks (1070) NAVMC 990722 from his service records. Paragraph 1006.1 of Command The following comments/opinions concerning the page 11 entry 6. dated 990722 are provided: a. rection of Naval Records disapprove equest for removal of the Administrative 11) page 11 entry dated 990722 from...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00020-99
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 28 December 1998, a copy of which is attached. The Board is quick to point out that performance counseling and the official recording of counseling sessions via Page 11 SRB entries are separate and distinctly different Subj : MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISOR SERGEAN N THE CASE OF STAFF SMC administrative actions. What he goes on to...
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 | 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08387-01
Petitioner denied that the applicant Petitioner was offered, and he accepted, NJP. Analysis a. Petitioner claims that his NJP was unjust because he believes the preliminary inquiry into his misconduct contained "inconsistencies" a statement Petitioner made at the NJP. The record of the NJP reveals that the NJP was just.