Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01106-01
Original file (01106-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
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 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08384-01

    Original file (08384-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (06693-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    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 | CY2002 | 00146-02

    Original file (00146-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (08254-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (06067-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (08224-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (07244-03.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. 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

    Original file (08075-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (03760-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...