DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
B O A R D F O R C O R R E C T I O N O F N A V A L R E C O R D S
2 N A V Y . A N N E X
W A S H I N G T O N D C 2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0
BJG
Docket No: 1156-00
8 March 2001
Dear Staff
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 8 March 2001. 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 8 February 2001, 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. 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 correctinn 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 U N I T E D STATES MARINE CORPS
3 2 8 0 R U s S l L L ROAD
QUANTICO, VlROlNlA 22 134-5 1 0 3
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
8 FEE 2001
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj :
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
Ref :
(a) SSgt-D
(b) MCO P1610.7D w/Ch 1-3
Form 149 of 27 Nov 00
SMC
THE CASE OF STAFF
--
1. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
with three members present, met on 7 February 2001 to consider
Staff s e r g e a n m e t i t i o n contained in reference (a).
Removal of the fitness report for the period 970102 to 970110
(TD) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation
directive governing submission of the report.
-
2. The petitioner offers matters in extenuation and mitigation
of his failures of the physical fitness test (PET). It is his
position that even though he had not received any limited duty
instructions, personnel at the Staff Noncommissioned Officers
Academy (SNCOA) were aware of his back injury. To support his
appeal, the petitioner furnishes copies of prior and subsequent
fitness reports, PET scores and dates, a copy of a graduation
certificate from the SNCOA Career course, and a copy of the
Career Course SOP.
3. In its pr,xrcdings, the PERB concluded that the report is
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a. The Board observes that the petitioner failed the
initial inventory PET conducted on 3 January 1997. His own
"prudent" man theory would have been appropriate in this case
and he should have alerted the instructors and reported to
sickbay for an evaluation at that time. He did not and was
subsequently retested on 10 January 1997. He also failed that
test. Those are the recorded facts and absolutely nothing
furnished with reference (a) refutes their accuracy.
b. Although the petitioner has provided, and references,
the Career Course SOP on PET failure (enclosure (4) to reference
Subj : MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY
SERGEANT
THE CASE OF STAFF
SMC
(a)), his reasoning is not logical. He evidently fails to
realize and note that subparagraph 3006.2b(3) of that directive
states in part: "Based on the reason for failure (Academic
Disenrollment), the MRO may be required to sign item 24 of
Section D." If the petitioner's poor physical fitness had been
medically documented and waived prior to attendance at th-e
academy, this would not have been an issue (subparagraph 2004 of
enclosure (4) to reference (a) ) . The injury was not a
preexisting condition and was not medically waived. Therefore,
passing the PET was an expected prerequisite for attendance.
c. The petitioner states undeniably that he was afforded
the opportunity to seek medical attention but refused. He
obviously made a conscious decision to not avail himself of such
assistance and should remain responsible for his own actions.
Succinctly stated, the challenged fitness report was not due to
medical problems as the petitioner infers, but rather failure of
two PFTs (a prerequisite to attendance at the SNCOA).
of Staff ~ergean'fficial
military record.
4. The Board's opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
5. The case is forwarded for final action.
v- ,---
- - --
~hair~erson,- Performance
Evaluation Review Board ,
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affai.rs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07849-00
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board 2000, 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. plagiarize the work of another student while at the Staff Noncommissioned Officers Academy (SNCO Academy), and that his disenrollment was unwarranted.
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 | CY2003 | 04790-03
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 | 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 | CY2003 | 02427-03
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evalwntiorl Review Board (PERB), dated 18 March 2003, a copy of which is attached. Per MCO 1610.11C1 the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three me Staff Sergean Removal of the following fitness reports was requested: t, met on 12 March 2003 to consider etition contained in reference (a). The petitioner is correct in identifying that Report A incorrectly overlaps the period covered by Report...
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 | CY1999 | 05106-99
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...
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 | 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 | 02992-99
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...