Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Thu Jan 25 09_58_26 CST 2001
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

BJG
Docket No: 5285-99
27 September 1999

Dear Gunnery Ser~~g~~

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 10 September 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.
considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review
Board (PERB), dated 12 August 1999, a copy of which is attached.

In addition, the Board

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. Accordingly, 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

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

HEADQUARTERS

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280 RUSSELL ROAD

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103

~z

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

AUG 1 21999

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ret:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR AP LICATION IN THE CASE OF
GUNNERY SERGEAN

________

USMC

(a) GySg
(b) MCO P161 .
h 1—3
(c) MCO P1610.7D w/Ch 1-5

‘

DD Form 149 of 25 May 99

1.
Per MCO 16l0.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
with three members present, met on 11 August 1999 to consider
Gunnery Sergean~~L~~
petition contained in reference
(a).
below and argues that the comments submitted by the Reviewing
Officer are biased and unjust.

The petitioner challenges the fitness reports identified

a.

b.

Report A — 970407 to 971031 (AN)

—— Reference (b) applies

Report B — 971101 to 980930 (DC) —— Reference (c) applies

2.
The petitioner contends that Lieutenant Colon~
comparative assessments (i.e., lower third and mid
pack, respectively) were rendered without sufficient observation
on that officer’s part.
prejudicial and reflected negatively against him when his record
To support his appeal,
was considered by the promotion board.
the petitioner provides his own detailed statement and invites
the Board’s attention to that portion of MCO P1610.7E which
delineate Reviewing Officer responsibilities.

It is his opinion that both analyses are

-~

In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that both reports are

3.
administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and
filed.

The following is offered as relevant:

a.

At the outset, the Board stresses that the petitioner has
References (b)
not MCO P1610.7E as the

argued the provisions of the incorrect directive.
and (c) were the applicable directives --
petitioner states.
petitioner describes was not a part of the references that govern
the challenged fitness reports.

The “comparative assessment” which the

b.

Subparagraph 4009.2b(2) of references (b) and (c)

encourages Reviewing Officers to provide not only additional

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF -
GUNNERY SERGEA~

-

comments on an individual’s performance (if observation permits),
but are also encouraged to furnish a “General Value to the
Service” distribution for the Marines within the overall
reviewing authority.
was within complete accord of those provisions.
opportunity to observe (Report A) is duly noted and his comments
are viewed in that same context.
absolutely no error, injustice, or bias.

Succinctly stated, Lieutenant Colonej~~j&

His limited

To this end, the board discerns

c.

While the petitioner argues that the Reviewing Officer’s

comments are unjust and biased, he offers nothing in the way of
documentation or corroboration to show that his performance was
anything other than as recorded/evaluated.
find that the petitioner has failed to meet the burden of proof
necessary to merit removal of the fitness reports.

In this regard, we

The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot

4.
vote is that the contested fitness reports should remain a part
of Gunnery Serge~~ ~‘iIIm~fficial

military record.

5.

The case is forwarded for final action.

.L-~ance

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

2



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 02799-99

    Original file (02799-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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." d. While the observations of Sergea Roundtree are certainly supportive and c...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 06069-03

    Original file (06069-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 August 2003. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. While you are correct that your record reflects no counseling entry about the incident cited in the contested fitness report, the Board was unable to were not counseled about the incident, noting that the third sighting...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00088-01

    Original file (00088-01.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. Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosure 1610 MMER/PERB 2 7 DEi ?OfJO 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 GUNNERY SERGEANT USMC (a) (b) GySg MC0 P1610.7E D...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05777-06

    Original file (05777-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Per MCO l610.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 21 June 2006 to consider Gunnery Sergeant XXXX petition contained in reference (a).Removal of the fitness report for the period 20040609 to 20041015 (TD) was requested. He feels that the reporting senior was personally biased and unfair in the evaluation after filing sexual assault charges against him. The Board also believed that the third officer sighter did a thorough job of putting the entire...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02430-03

    Original file (02430-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 18 March 2003, a copy of which is attached. V I R G I N I A 22 1 3 4 - 9 1 03 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB MAR 1 8 2003 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj : MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISOR SERGEAN HE CASE OF STAFF SMC Ref: (a) SSgt (b) MCO P1610.7E DD Form 149 of 30 Dec 02 1. 'CH"...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 04790-03

    Original file (04790-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PEW), dated 2 June 2003, a copy of which is attached. (6), concerning section A, item 8b (physical fitness test (PFT)) of the fitness report form, says "Use code 'NMED' [not medically qualified] if the MRO warine reported on] is unable to take or pass the PFT because of a physical (medical) condition." The "NMED" entry in Item 8b of the fitness report, whi.ch is further...

  • 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 | 01944-01

    Original file (01944-01.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. To support his appeal, the petitioner furnishes his own statement. The Board does not, however, find this to invalidate the entire report and has directed removal of the following verbiage from Section I: ™“..where he was charged with Driving While Intoxicated, later...” As modified,...

  • 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 | CY2001 | 00767-01

    Original file (00767-01.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. Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS U N I T E D STATE6 MARINE CORPS 3280 R U S S E L L ROAD QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22 134-8 103 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB 2 5 JAN 2001 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION...