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 NAW ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SMC
Docket No: 02799-99
5 August 1999
-.--
This is in reference to your
provisions of title 10 of the
application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the
United States Code, section 1552.
I
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 5 August 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 Perfofmance Evaluation Review
Board (PERB), dated 25 April 1999, a copy of which is attached.
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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurr with the comments contained
in the report of the PERB. In view of the above, your applic tion has been denied. The
names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnirhud upon request.
4
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such tha favorable action cannot be
taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decis on 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
t
records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an wfficial naval record, the
burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of prohable material error or
injustice.
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
Enclosure
EPARTMENT OF T H E NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
~ ~ E O R U S S E L L R O A D
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22 134-5 1 0 3
IN REPLY R E F E R TO.
1610
MMER/PERB
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Sub j :
Ref:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINIO
GUNNERY SERGEAN
CASE OF
USMC
(a) GySgt
(b) MCO P
(c) MCO 1610.12 (USMC Counseling Program)
'orm i43 ai lij F& 99
1-4
1. Per MCO 1 6 1 0 ~ l l ~ , the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
with three me
Gunnery Serge
Removal of th
(TR) was requested. Reference (b) i,s the pterformance evaluation
directive governing submission of the reporL.
t, met on 21 April 1999 to consider
etition contained in reference (a).
port for the period 971126 to 980323
2. The petitioner argues that the fitness report focuses on one
isolated incident rather than the "whole Marine concept." He
also charges that the report violates references (b) (since it
was "back-dated") and (c) (absence of counseling) . To support
his appeal, the petitioner furnishes statements from Sergeants
Major Lott and Roundtree.
I
3. In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is
both administratively correct and procedur lly complete as
written and filed. The following is offer 2 d as relevant:
a. While the ? j ~ r d notes that the dates in Items 22 and 24
have been changed, they do not find this to invalidate the
report. The petitioner has stated the rep~rt was back-dated;
however, he provides no explanation as to why he believes this
action should somehow cause the Board to question the report's
accuracy or fairness.
b. The issue of counseling has been sufficiently addressed
and resolved by the Reviewing Officer. The Board also offers its
observation that performance counseling, or a lack thereof, does
not constitute grounds for removing a fitness report. Reference
(b) governs a totally separate program from the Counseling
Program established by reference (c). The two should be applied
simultaneously; however, they are totally exclusive of each
other.
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." The
Reporting Senior has been very specific in those areas of the
petitioner's performance which were lacking. He also cited
\\ . . . more than seven separate occasions. . ." where profane and
verbal abuse were directed at individual Marines. In the eyes of
the Board, that is certainly not "one isolated incident."
d. While the observations of Sergea
Roundtree are certainly supportive and c o m p - m e n ar they and simply
do not serve to invalidate the firsthand observations of both the
Reporting Senior and Reviewing Officer.
4. The Board's opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
of Gunnery Serge
fficial 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
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Thu Oct 12 14_04_06 CDT 2000
considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 25 April 1999, a copy of which is attached. Reference (b) governs a totally separate program from the Counseling Program established by reference (c). The two should be applied The Board also offers its Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF GUNNERY SERGEA~’~ ~ USMC c. Contrary to the petitioner’s argument, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04216-02
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 | 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 | 01371-99
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 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 | 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 | CY2001 | 07267-01
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. The following is offered as relevant: a. Evidently both the petitioner and the Reporting Seniors the Marine reported on needs to be seen by a for both reports have misunderstood the criteria contained in references (b) and (c) concerning weight issues. To be placed on Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW...
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 | 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 | CY2003 | 04217-03
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 6 May 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 the existence of probable material error or injustice. Per MCO 1610.11C1 the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 5 May 2003 to consider Staff serges-etition contained in...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03129-99
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 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...