DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Y
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON, D C.
20370-5100
SMC
Docket No: 07981-98
29 April 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 29 April 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 9 November 1998, 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 found no prohibition against addressing the same
adverse matters in both the contested fitness report and your uncontested service record
page 11 (“Administrative Remarks”) counseling entry. In this regard, they noted that neither
is technically considered to constitute a punitive action. 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
HEAL
EPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
IARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELLROA
D
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA
22
134-5 103
,N REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
9 Nov 98
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
SERGEAN
USMC
(b)
MC0
P1610.7D
DD Form 149 of 1 Sep 98
w/Ch l-3
Per
MC0
1610.11B, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
present, met on 6 November 1998 to consider
s petition contained in reference (a).
1.
with three members
Staff Sergeant
Removal of the fitness report for the period 970706 to 970831
(TR) was requested.
directive governing submission of the report.
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation
The petitioner believes that rather than evaluating his
2.
performance during the period covered by the report, the
appraisal unfairly reflects one incident.
the petitioner provides his own detailed statement, a copy of the
fitness report, extracts from his Service Record Book (SRB), and
copies of reports received prior and subsequent to the one under
consideration.
To support his appeal,
In its proceedings,
3.
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
The following is offered as relevant:
written and filed.
the PERB concluded that the report is
a.
The adversity of the report is in the Section C comments
While only a 57-day
and is an uncontroverted matter of fact.
report, reference (b) includes several exceptions to the usual
go-day rule concerning observed fitness reports.
situations or incidents,
report, constitute such an exception.
Adverse
such as the one delineated in the
b.
Reference (a) has not identified any policy or procedural
errors relative to the guidance contained in reference (b). In
summation, the petitioner's appeal merely offers his continuing
The Reporting Senior's
disagreement and differing opinion.
opinion, as confirmed by the Reviewing Officer, believed the
awarding of the adverse report was appropriate and warranted.
We have no reason to question or challenge that decision.
C .
As a final matter,
the petitioner's prior and subsequent
fitness reports have absolutely no relevancy on the issues
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF STAFF
SERGEANT
, USMC
They represent and
contained in the challenged fitness report.
evaluate performance during different periods and under different
Reporting Seniors and Reviewing Officers.
The Board's opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
4.
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.
ormance
Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04197-02
Report A - 990827 to 991231 (AN). Report C - 000630 to 001231 (AN). Evaluation Review Board, request for May 2002 to consider Staff removal of his fitness report for the period 010101 to 010209 Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive (CH).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03057-01
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed that the contested fitness report be amended by changing the beginning date from 27 February to 13 April 1996. They found the reviewing officer had no duty to direct the reporting senior to revise or remove those of his comments which rendered the report adverse, but he correctly ensured that you were afforded your rights regarding adverse fitness reports. This includes, but is certainly not limited to, Had there been...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07535-01
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removal of the contested fitness reports for 1 January to 16 June 1996 and 2 August to 31 December 1996. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 20 September 2001, 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 06467-98
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 I Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY htdKIUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON, D.C....
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 08332-98
They also considered the evidence considered at your nonjudicial punishment (NJP) proceedings, and your counsel’s undated rebuttal letter. The punishment imposed upon Petitioner and Petitioner does not deny the In reviewing Petitioner's case, however, Accordingly, we recommend that Petitioner's request for 7 . The uncontroverted matter of fact relative to removal of the fitness report Unless and until The Board's opinion, 4. vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05588-01
consisted of your application, naval record considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Removal The petitioner contends that the report on file in his 2. official military record is different from the one he acknowledged and signed; that changes were made without his To support his appeal, the petitioner furnishes knowledge. counsel and discuss the s in possession of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06847-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 24 August 2001, a copy of which is attached. Finally, as stated by the PERB, the contested fitness report and your extension on active duty were separate administrative actions; and while the reporting senior did recommend approval of your extension, he did so without making any further comment. Reference (b) is the performance .L.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05129-02
JEPARTMENT OF THE NAV Y HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROAD QUANT ICO, V IRGINIA 221 34-51 0 3 : IN REPLY REFER TO 1610 MMER/PERB MAY ltitil 0 3 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APP SERGEAN E CASE OF STAFF USMC (a) (b) SSgt MC0 P1610.7D s DD Form 149 of 15 Jan 02 w/Ch 1-4 Per MC0 1610.11C, 1. with three members...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05815-01
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 23 July 2001, a copy of which is attached. The Board was unable to find you were not counseled during the pertinent reporting period, noting that the reporting...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01250-99
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN COLONEL (2) Standard Addendum Page 1 of 9 (Frame Ell, 04 Fiche). attachments to fitness reports, other reference (b). 4. vote, remain a part of Colonel limited corrective actions through is that the contested fitness report, as modified, should 3a(7) are considered sufficient.