DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
B O A R D FOR C O R R E C T I O N O F NAVAL R E C O R D S
2 NAVY ANNEX
W A S H I N G T O N D C 2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0
SMC
Docket No: 00767-01
14 June 2001
Is,
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 14 June 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
25 January 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 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 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 OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
SERGEANT M
USMC
A
J
~
Ref:
(a) SgtMaj
(b) MCO P1610.7E
DD Form 149 of 27 Apr 00-
Encl:
( 1 ) Completed Fitness Report 981001 to 990930 (AN)
1. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
with three members present, met on 2 November 2000 to consider
Sergeant ~ajo-s
petition contained in reference (a).
Removal of the Reviewing Officer's comrnents/marks from the fit-
ness report for the period 981001 to 990930 (AN) was requested.
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation di~ective governing
submission of the report.
2. The petitioner argues that the Reviewing Officer had observed
him for less than four months when he provided his commentary on
the report. He observes that the Reviewing Officer was located
at Parris Island, South Carolina, some 300 miles from the
Recruiting Station in Raleigh, North Carolina, where the
petitioner was stationed. This, he believes, constitutes
insufficient time to provide a fair evaluation.
3. In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that:
a. The petitioner's assertion that the Reviewing Officer
had insufficient time to warrant an observation is incorrect.
Reference (b) stipulates that the detailed observations rendered
by Reporting Seniors should normally be for periods of 90 days or
more. That provision, however, does not preclude any reporting
official from rendering observed reports for shorter periods,
especially when they believe the performance was significant
enough to warrant comment. Certainly a period of approximately
four months, in t3 high visibility assignment such as a Recruiting
Station Sergeant Major, would be ample opportunity for the
Reviewing Officer to assess the petitioner's performance. To
this end, the Board concludes the petitioner has failed to meet
the burden of proof necessary to constitute an error or
injustice.
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
SERGEANT MAJ
C
b. The Board finds that the overall tenor of the Reviewing
Officer's comments are such that the petitioner should have been
afforded an opportunity to acknowledge their content and respond.
Owing to the relative recency of the report at the time reference
(a) was first considered by the PERB (13 months), the Board found
that referring those comments would be a viable option.
c. All referral action, to include Third Officer Si.ghting,
has been accomplished. The Board finds the report should now
stand on its own merit.
4. The Board's opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that the contested fitness report
enclosure, should remain a part of Sergean
official military record.
The case is forwarded for final action.
Chairperson, Ferformance
Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03156-01
You also made new requests to remove your relief for cause from recruiting duty, which was requested on 5 April 1999; your nonjudicial punishment of 29 March 1999; and your service record page 11 counseling entries dated 17 and 24 February 1999. We are asked to provide an advisory opinion on Petitioner's request for the removal from his Service Record Book (SRB) and his official military personnel file (OMPF) of all references to his nonjudicial punishment (NJP) of 29 March 1999 and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01130-01
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified your contested fitness report for 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000 to reflect that you were the subject of commendatory material. 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 Board does not find that this omission invalidates an otherwise completely...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07142-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 6 September 2001, and the PERB chairperson electronic mail dated 3 October 2001, copies of which are attached. As each fitness report is for a specific period, your having received a more favorable report for the immediately preceding period, from the same reporting senior for your performance of the same job, did not convince them that the contested report was...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06691-01
The Board found the reviewing officer permissibly referred to matters outside the reporting period in question, in order to reply to issues you raised in your rebuttal to the contested fitness report. 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. As an adverse fitness report, the petitioner was afforded his rightful opportunity to acknowledge and respond...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08257-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 1 November 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 probable material error or injustice. MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08308-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 15 November 2001, a copy of which is attached. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board. .--- -----T- Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08387-01
Petitioner denied that the applicant Petitioner was offered, and he accepted, NJP. Analysis a. Petitioner claims that his NJP was unjust because he believes the preliminary inquiry into his misconduct contained "inconsistencies" a statement Petitioner made at the NJP. The record of the NJP reveals that the NJP was just.
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 | CY2000 | 01156-00
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. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. The petitioner offers matters in extenuation and mitigation of his failures of the physical fitness test (PET).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00559-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 22 January 2001 with enclosure, a copy of which is attached. When the petitioner acknowledged the adverse nature of the report on 20 June 1999 (evidence her signature in Section Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF GUNNERY SERGEANT SMC ment of rebuttal , she had still not furnished her...