Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01797-99
Original file (01797-99.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 NAW ANNEX 

WASHINGTON DC  20370-5100 

SMC 
Docket No:  01797-99 
7 October  1999 

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 7 October  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  15 March  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.  Accordingly, your application has been  denied.  The names and 
votes of the members of  the panel  will be furnished  upon  request. 

C* 

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 

HE,.-dUARTERS  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 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF 

NAVAL RECORDS 

Subj : 

Ref: 

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

MC 

(b) MCO 

DD Form 149 of 9 Dec 98 
Ch 1-5 

1.  Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, 
with three members present, met on 9 March 1999 to consider Staff 
Sergeant 
of the fitness report for the period 980401 to 980630 (TD) was 
requested.  Reference  (b) is the performance evaluation directive 
governing submission of the report. 

etition contained in reference  (a).  Removal 

2.  The petitioner contends the report was used as a counseling 
tool and is not a fair evaluation of his overall performance. 
Additionally, he disclaims any counseling regarding the Reporting 
Senior's  expectations and claims the report focuses on two 
"isolated occurrences." 

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.  In his statement appended to reference  (a), the peti- 

tioner has done nothing more than reiterate the same issues which 
he surfaced when he initially responded to the adv 
the report.  During his review of the report, Capt 
addressed the petitioner's  disagreements and dissa 
the overall evaluation, finding in favor of the Reporting Senior. 
It certainly appears to the Board that both the Reporting Senior 
and Reviewing Officer provided sufficient "counseling"  to the 
petitioner.  Whether he accepted that counsel is another issue. 

b.  To justify the deletion or amendment of a fitness report, 

evidence of probable error or injustice should be submitted. 
Notwithstanding the petitioner's  own statement, we find nothing 
to prove that the report is either unfair or inaccurate, or that 
the petitioner was not the recipient of needed guidance and 
counsel. 

c.  As an ~iri~inistrative note, the Board obsel~es that the 

petitioner's  prior fitness report ended on "980417"  and that the 

Subj :  MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  (PERB) 

ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF STAFF 
SERGEAN 

SMC 

challenged evaluation overlaps that period.  We do not, however, 
find this oversight to either invalidate the fitness report under 
consideration or to warrant corrective action by this Board. 

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 

official 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 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 02525-99

    Original file (02525-99.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. 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 | 01967-99

    Original file (01967-99.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. 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

    Original file (03129-99.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. 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 | 00211-99

    Original file (00211-99.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. 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 | 00020-99

    Original file (00020-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY1999 | 02992-99

    Original file (02992-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY1998 | 07511-98

    Original file (07511-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 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 | 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 | CY2003 | 02430-03

    Original file (02430-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 18 March 2003, a copy of which is attached. V I R G I N I A 22 1 3 4 - 9 1 03 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB MAR 1 8 2003 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj : MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISOR SERGEAN HE CASE OF STAFF SMC Ref: (a) SSgt (b) MCO P1610.7E DD Form 149 of 30 Dec 02 1. 'CH"...