Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01970-99
Original file (01970-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
D E P A R T M E N T  O F  T H E  N A V  
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD 

2 N A W  ANNEX 

WASHINGTON DC  20370-5100 

f 

SMC 
Docket No:  01970-99 
19 August  1999 

Dear Gunnery sergean- 

This is in  reference to  your  application for correction of  your 
provisions of  title  10 of  the United States Code,  section  1552. 
fitness reports,  for  18 January to 20 May  1996 and 23 Septen 

naval record  pursuant to the 
You  requested removal of  two 
ber  1997 to 26 January  1998. 

It is noted  that the Commandant of  the Marine Corps (CMC) 
officer's comments from both  reports. 

las removed  the reviewing 

A three-member panel of  the Board  for Correction of  Naval  ecords, sitting in  executive 
session, considered your  application on  19 August  1999.  Yo  r allegations of  error and 

applicable to the proceedings of  this Board.  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 furnished upon  request.  1 

After careful and conscientious consideration of  the entire rec  rd, the Board  found that the 
evidence submitted was  insufficient to establish the existence  f probable material error or 
injustice warranting further corrections.  In  this connection, t  e Board  substantially concurred 
with  the comments contained in  the report of  the PERB.  In 
application for relief  beyond  that effected by  CMC  has been  enied.  . The names and votes of 

the Board 

Review 

It is regretted  that the circumstances of your  case are such  thy favorable action cannot be 
taken.  You  are entitled to  have the Board  reconsider its deci 
material evidence or other  matter  not  previously  considered 
important to keep in  mind  that a presumption  of  regularitv attaches to all official records. 

upon  submission of  new  and 
Board.  In  this regard, it is 

iew of  the above, your 

Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official  naval  record,  the burden is on the 
applicant to demonstrate the existence of proh:hIr  m~terial error or injustice. 

Sincerely 

W. DEAN PFEIFFER 
Executive Director 

Enclosure 

DEPARTMENT OF T H E  NAVY 

.*EADQUARTERS  U N I T E D  STATES  M A R I N E  C  R P I  

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

QUANTICO,  VIRGINIA  22 1 3 4 - 5  1 0 3  

4 

I 

IN REPLY REFER TO: 
1610 
MMER/PERB 
MAR  1 6 1999 
MEMORANDUM  FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, B O A ~ D  FOR CORRECTION OF 

NAVAL RECORDS 

Subj : 

Ref: 

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  (PERB) 
ADVISOR 
SERGEAN 

IN THE CASE OF STAFF 

USMC 

(a) SSgt.- 
(b) MCO P1610.7D 
(c) MCO P1610.7D w/Ch 1-4 

DL! 1-L::I 1 . L   .:I: 

,:!!:: Oct 98 

I 

i 

t 

1.  Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Eva1 ation Review Bo'ard, 
with three members present, met on 16 Marc  1999 to consider 
Staff Sergeant-petition 
contained in reference (a). 
Removal of the following fitness reports w s requested: 

a.  Report A -  960118 to 960520 (CH) -  Reference  (b) applies 
b.  Report B -  970923 to 980126 (TR) -1 Reference  (c) applies 

2.  The petitioner contends that certain cbmments made by the 
Reviewing Officer in his remarks in ReportA are derogatory. 
Likewise, he challenges comments made by b 
Senior and Reviewing Officer in Report B. 
that he should have been afforded his righ 
respond to both appraisals and ensured a r 
officer.  The petitioner also infers that 
as counseling tools. 

is his position 
opportunity to 

by a third 
reports were used 

Reporting 

I 

3.  In its proceedings, the PERB concluded/that: 

a.  As contended, the 
with both reports should 
official acknowledgment 
Board concludes that the 
Officer comments is warranted and has so directed that action. 

the petitioner for 
respond.  The 

comments included 

of Reviewing 

b.  Contrary to the petitioner's argum.?nt, the Board discerns 

nothing derogatory or inconsistent in the .?valuations by either 
First Lieutenan-ort 
(Report B).  Likewise, they find 
petitioner's  inference that the 
"counseling tools ." 

corroborate the 

somehow utilized as 

Lieutena- 

A) or 

c.  While the 12 advocacy letters fu:;:'islic;il with ~cference 

(a) certainly speak well of the petition(;!,, the Board is quick to 

Subj :  MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATIO 
SERGEAN- 

REVIEW BOARD  (PERB) 
I  IN THE CASE OF STAFF 
I)L USMC 

~ o i n t  out that all of those documents were 
of the petitioner's qualifications for pron~otion to the grade of 
Gunnery Sergeant, and not as an attempt to invalidate the fitness 
reports at issue. 

lssued as endorsements 

d.  C o l o n w e t t e r  of 23 October 1998 is also 
supportive from his position as the petitioner's  current 
Battalion Commander.  However, the Board d'sagrees with his 
"interpretation"  that both reports are "de ogatory" and should be 

expunged from his record.  By eliminating I he Reviewing Officer's 

remarks from both reports, the Board has removed the "derogatory" 
comments without invalidating the complete reports. 

4.  The Board's  opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot 
vote, is that the contested fitness 
as modified, should 
remain a part of Staff 
record.  The limited 
3a is considered sufficient. 

military 
in subparagraph 

5.  The case is forwarded for final action I 

n, Performance 

Review Board 

Chairpersc 
Evaluatiol 
Personnel 
Manpower i 
Departmeni 
By direct: 
of the Ma: 

Management Division 
nd Reserve Affairs 

on of the Commandant 
ine Corps 



Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 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 | 01371-99

    Original file (01371-99.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 24 February 1999, a copy of which is attached. They noted, in this regard, that you were permitted to submit a rebuttal, despite your initial declination; that the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03415-99

    Original file (03415-99.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. 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 | 01984-99

    Original file (01984-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY1998 | 08472-98

    Original file (08472-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY H E A - 4 U A R T L R S U N I T E D STATES M A R I N E CORPS 3 2 8 0 R U S S E...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02761-03

    Original file (02761-03.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. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 28 March 2003, 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 | CY2001 | 03156-01

    Original file (03156-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2002 | 04216-02

    Original file (04216-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed that the contested fitness report for 29 June to 5 September 2000 be modified by changing item 3a (occasion) from "CH" (change of reporting senior) to "TR" (transfer). This is especially germane given the contents of the report and the fact that the petitioner and these same two reporting officials had an already-established reporting history GUNNER- - (PERB) OF USMC and Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01983-99

    Original file (01983-99.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 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...