DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20370-5100
SMC
Docket No: 07213-98
16 April 1999
SSG1~I$~Mj.IJ~l~ USMC
Dear Staff Serge~j$j~flpjp-
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. You requested removal of a
fitness report for 15 July to 31 December 1995.
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.”
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 15 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.
the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 5
October 1998, a copy of which is attached.
In addition, the Board considered the report of
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 warranting removal of the complete contested report.
substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB.
the above, your application for relief beyond that effected by CMC has been denied. The
names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
In this connection, the Board
In view of
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 THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22 134-5103
7~/~~/
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/ PERB
5 Oct 98
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BC~P~ICATION IN THE CASE OF STAFF
S ERGEAI~~P~W~~_11fl1T
~JP~I~
USMC
Ret:
(a) ~
(b) MCO P16l0.7D
DD Form 149 of 9 Jul 98
Per MCO 1610.11B, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
1.
with three members present, met on 30 September 1998 to consider
Staff ~
Removal of the fitness report for the period 950715 to 951231
(AN) was requested.
directive governing submission of the report.
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation
petition contained in reference (a)
The petitioner contends the report is unjust due to the
2.
“above average” mark in Item 14a (endurance) .
To support his
appeal, the petitioner furnishes his own statement, copies of
other fitness reports, and a letter from the Reporting Senior of
record, Captain~~
3.
In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that:
a.
Based on the statement from Captain~ ~
the PERB is
thoroughly convinced that the mark of “abov~~è. ~je” in Item 14a
was based entirely on the petitioner’s low physical fitness test
(PFT) score.
b.
Unfortunately, the Reporting Senior continues to mis-
interpret the basis for assigning an observed mark in Item 14a.
Justification for such a mark is not, as he infers, PFT results.
To this end, the Board does not agree that the mark should be
elevated to “
sentence in paragraph three of Captain t~~~letter of 1 Jul
98) .
Instead, the Board has directed the mark in Item 14a to be
changed to “not observed.”
report is suspect and should be eliminated.
. at least excellent maybe outstanding” (last
They do not agree that the entire
.
.
The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
4.
vote, is that the contested fitness report, as modified, should
remain a part of Staff Sergeant_____
record.
3b is considered sufficient.
The limited corrective action identified in subparagraph
~s official military
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPL~C~TIONIN THE CASE OF STAFF
SERGEANT A I~ILT~4j~,~
SMC
5.
The case is forwarded for final action
~irpersou,
~ri~rmance
Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 07213-98
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 | CY1999 | Document scanned on Wed Sep 27 14_25_51 CDT 2000
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.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 April 1999. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 08343-98
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested fitness report by changing the entry in item 5a from "NNNMED" (rifle. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 24 November 1998, 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...
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 | 07166-01
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removal of the contested fitness report for 1 January to 2 February 1996. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated 30 July 2002 with enclosures.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 concluding that no further correction to your fitness report record...
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 | CY1998 | 08224-98
The Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB in finding that no correction of your fitness report record was warranted. 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. Subsequently, he unsuccessfully petitioned the Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) for removal of the fitness report for the period 970125-970731 and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00955-00
The Board's opinion, 4. vote, is that Report A should remain a part of Captain official military record. Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) for removal of the Directed by the Commandant of the Marine Corps fitness report of 980117 to 980904. failures of selection. Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) for removal of the Captain record and SMC Major he successfully petitioned the Duty fitness report of 940201 to 940731. requests removal of his failures of selection.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 02223-99
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested fitness report by removing the sentence "Sgt [your last name] balances work and a difficult situation in an unselfish and unswerving manner." In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 29 March 1999, a copy of which is attached. The petitioner believes that the markings in Items 13c (administrative duties), 13e (handling...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07271-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 January 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review (PERB) dated 23 October 2000 with enclosures, a copy of which is attached. ‘\ ‘: 1 i/-f{_ “,’ ‘I From : D...