DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD 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
BJG
Docket No: 1 106-01
8 March 2001
.4
MCR
Dear Co
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 9 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 c o n c d with the comments contained
in the report of the PERR. They found the narrative of the contested fitness report to be
adequately clear. 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
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS U N I T E D STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22 134-5 1 0 3
IN REPLY REFER TD.
1610
MMER/ PERB
9 FEB ?001
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NRVAL RECORDS
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
-
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
LIEUTENANT.
MCR
Ref:
(a) LtCol.
(b) MCO P1
DD Form 149 of 19 Sep 00
h 1
1. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
et on 2 February 2001 to consider
with three membe
Lieutenant Colon
etition contained in reference (a).
Removal of the fl
(CH) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation
directive governing submission of the report.
report for the period 810712 to 810731
2. The petitioner contends the report is inconsistent and
ambiguous, especially when comparing the mark in Item 15
(General Value to the Service) with the mark of! "Particularly
Desire" in Item 16 (Desirability to Have Under Command). It is
his position that the ambiguity of the report was such that he
wasn't sure what to rebut other than the "adverse mark."
3. In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a. When the petitioner acknowledged the adverse nature of
the report (evidence his signature in Item 24), he included a
statement in his own behalf. In his commentary, he indicated he
disagreed with the comment in Section C concerning his troop
handling skills, as well as with several of the assigned Section
B ratings. In the final analysis, however, the Reviewing
Officer indicated that the Reporting Senior wrote reports that
were " . . . honest and to the point." To this end, the Board
discerns absolutely no material error or injustice.
b. As a matter of information, and contrary to what the
petitioner indicates, there is no 'adverse" mark on the report.
What rendered the evaluation worthy of signature in Item 24 was
the comment concerning the manner in which he handled troops.
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
Consequently, his statement that he could only comment on the
"adverse mark" is viewed as being without merit.
c. While the petitioner now objects to a two-week report,
the fact is that at the time he was in a Selected Marine Corps
Reserve (SMCR) unit and the period of the report may very well
have corresponded with his two-week annual training (ATD). Per
the provisions of paragraph 5002, Figure 5-1, of reference (b),
annual reserve reports on first lieutenants were due the end of
January. The annual training duty report (SC) was due, as a
separate report, unless the annual was to occur within 60 days
after the ATD termination. Obviously if this were the case, the
annual training report would be warranted. Although the report
at issue was submitted as a change of Reporting Senior (CH), it
could more appropriately have been an "SC". However, clarity
some 19 years after the fact is difficult. Nevertheless it
would have been an error in form, not substance.
4. The Board's opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that the c
of Lieutenant Colon
ess report should remain a part
fficial military record.
S. Marine Corps
Deputy Director
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08384-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 6 December 2001, a copy of which is attached. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation never officially counseled The petitioner contends he was 2. that his performance was or would result in an adverse fitness report. The Board believes Sub-j: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION 0 LIEUTENANT COLONEL OF SMC b.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06693-01
At the outset, the board observes that Colone was the proper Reporting Senior for Report A (so acknow when the petitioner si that Lieutenant Colone Section B marks and Section C comments has absolutely no grounding in fact. Report B was completed a little over two months after the end of ased his observation PI he still had daily 2 Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR USMC the reporting period is not...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02430-03
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 | CY2002 | 00146-02
in the report of the PERB in concluding no correction of your fitness report record was warranted. Removal of the following fitness reports was requested: a. Lieutenant Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) denied his request for removal of the Annual fitness reports of 960801 to 970731 and 970801 to 980731. ailed selection on the FY-02 USMC on Board.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08254-01
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested fitness report for 1 September 1999 to 30 April 2000 by adding the revised reviewing officer comments dated 9 October deleting the nonconcurrence with the mark assigned in item H. 1 (evaluation of your responsibility as a reporting official). In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 5 November 2001, a copy of which is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 06067-03
In addition, you requested that the fitness report for 1 to 6 June 2001 be modified, by changing the beginning date from 1 June 2001 to 22 December 2000, and removing the reporting senior (RS)‘s section I comment: “This report was drafted and resubmitted to replace a previously submitted report lost in the administrative mailing process.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 August 2003. In...
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 | CY2003 | 07244-03
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 was unable to find the contested fitness report was in reprisal for your request mast. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08075-02
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 12 September 2002, a copy of which is attached. concurred with the Reporting Senior's extended evaluation does not somehow invalidate how the petitioner was ranked in the Comparative Assessment (Item K3) on the challenged fitness The fact that he Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINI LIEUTENANT COL MC report. Additionally,...
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...