Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03419-99
Original file (03419-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
D E P A R T M E N T  O F  T H E  
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL 

2 NAVY ANNEX 

WASHINGTON DC  20370-5100 

Docket No:  03419-99 
19 August  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  19 August  1999.  Your allegations of error and 
injustice were reviewed in  accordance with  administrative reg  lations and  procedures 
applicable to  the proceedings of  this Board.  Documentary m  erial considered by  the Board 
consisted of  your application, together with  all material submi ted  in  support thereof, your 

naval  record  and  applicable statutes, regulations and  policies. 3 In  addition, the Board 

considered the report of  the Headquarters Marine Corps ~erfa/rmance Evaluation  Review 
Board  (PERB), dated 24 May  1999, a copy of  which  is attachM. 

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 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  tha~ 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 

4 

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. 

Sincerelv 

W.  DEAN PFEIFFER 
Executive  Director 

Enclosure 

DEPARTMENT OF T H E  NAVY 

H E A D Q U A R T E R S  U N I T E D  STATES M A R I N E   C ~ R P S  

3 2 8 0 R U S S E L L R O A D  

QUANTICO,  V I R G I N I A   22 1 3 4 - 5  103 

1610 
MMER/PERB 
MY  2 4  1999 
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF 

IN REPLY REFER TO: 

NAVAL RECORDS 

Sub j : 

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

USMCR 

Ref: 

(a) sergean- 
(b) MCO P1610.7D w/Ch 1 

. 

- 

F'r-,rrr, 

i  .l : , . I <  

b  Elar  99 

1.  Per MCO 1610.11CI the Performance Eva1 ation Review Board, 
with three members present, met on 19 May  999 to consider 
Sergean 
of the fitness report for the period 
requested.  Reference  (b) is the performance evaluation directive 
governing submission of the report. 

petition contained in refe ence  (a).  Removal 
to 960901 (TR) was 

2.  The petitioner contends that the conduct of nonjudicial 
punishment  (NJP) was a grave injustice to his career and that the 
fitness report was utilized as a means to  nd his progression on 
active duty. 

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 d as relevant: 

a.  Notwithstanding 

buttal and current 
ry evidence to suggest 
propriate or unfairly 
icate that the report 
assessrrleilt of 

statement, there is 
or prove that the 
awarded. 
reflects anything other than an hbiicsi 
the petitioner's  performance, or that 
harbored a 'hidden  agenda"  to 
duty career.  That punishment 
suspended and subsequent 
outstanding speak well of the petitioner's  resolve.  Those issues 
do not, however, negate the NJP, which is  matter of official 
record.  To this end, the Board stresses t at the NJP was 
correctly recorded via the performance eva uation system and 
represents neither an error nor an injustice. 

b.  To justify the deletion of a fitness report, evidence of 
probable error or injustice should be produced.  Such is simply 
not the situation in this case. 

I 

Subj :  MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE E 

ADVISORY 
SERGEANT 

IEW BOARD  (PERB) 
THE CASE OF 
USMCR 

4.  The Board's  opinion, based on deliberadion and secret ballot 
vote, is t 
of Sergean 

ested fitness report should remain a part 
icial military record. 

5.  The case is forwarded for final action. 

Evaluation Review Board 
Personnel Management Division 
Manpower and Reserve Affairs 
Department 
By directipn of the Commandant 
of the Marine Corps 



Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 00130-99

    Original file (00130-99.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. S u b j : MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) HE CASE OF USMC The case is forwarded for final action.

  • 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 03760-99

    Original file (03760-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 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 | 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 | 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...