Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01118-01
Original file (01118-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
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  NAVY  ANNEX 

W A S H t N G T O N   DC  2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0  

BJG 
Docket No:  1118-01 
9 March 2001 

Dear Maj 

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. 

It is noted  that the Commandant of  the Marine Corps (CMC) has removed the duplicate copy 
of  your  fitness report  for 31 December  1986 to 26 May  1987 and  modified this report, as 
you  requested, by  adding the reviewing officer's comments. 

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 probable material error or injustice, 
warranting removal of your contested fitness report for 2 August to 31 December  1986.  In 
this connection, the Board  substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report 
of  the PERB.  Accordingly, your application for relief beyond that  effected by  CMC 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  22 1 3 4 - 5  1 0 3  

IN REPLY REFER TO: 
1610 
MMER/ PERB 

8  FEB  2U0I 

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 MAJOR 

Ref: 

(a) Maj 
(b) M
C
(c) MCO P1610.7C w/Ch 1-2 

h
1 

O

DD Form 149 of 27 Oct 00 
C

 

~

1.  Per MCO 1610.11Cf the Performance Evaluation Review Board, 
with three members present, met on 2 February 2001 to consider 
Maj 
ind 

petition contained in reference  (a).  Action as 

equested on the following fitness reports: 

u 

a.  Report A -  860802 to 861231 (AN) --  Removal in its 

entirety.  Reference  (b) applies. 

b.  Report B -  861231 to 870526 (TR) -- Addition of 

Reviewing Officer's  statement and elimination of the duplicate 
version of the report.  Reference  (c) applies. 

2.  The petitioner contends that Report A wa;  rendered "adverse" 
by virtue of the "excellent" markings in Items 13a  (regular 
duties), 14j  (leadership), 15a  (general value to the service), 
and by being set apart from his peers in the Item 15b 
distribution.  Concerning R C ~ ~ L L  
recent request from  (now)Lieutenant General-(dated 
15 September 2000) in which he asks for the insertion into the 
petitioner's  official military personnel file of his 
11 January 1995 letter.  Said letter is to serve as Reviewing 
Officer's  comments for Report B.  Finally, the petitioner points 
out that there are two identical copies of Report B, one of 
which should be eliminated. 

B, the p~Litioner furnishes a 

3.  In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that.: 

a.  Report A is both administratively correct and 

procedurally complete as written and filed.  Succinctly stated, 
and contrary to what the petitioner may have been told or 
believes, the report is not adverse.  It is emblematic of highly 

Sub j :  MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  (PERB) 

TION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR 
SMC 

successful efforts and results; the Reporting Senior was correct 
in his counseling comments as stated by the petitioner.  The 
fact that the petitioner was not ranked higher than his three 
contemporaries may not be to his liking; however, that does not 
render the report "adverse."  No argument has been offered or 
substantiated as to why the Reporting Senior should have-Yated 
him otherwise. 

b.  The actions requested relative to Report B are warranted 

and have been directed. 

4.  The Board's  opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot 
vote, is that Report A should remain a part of Major 
official military record. 

r11118110 

5.  The case is forwarded for final action. 

Deputy Director 
Personnel Management Division 
Manpower and Reserve Affairs 
Department 
By direction of the Commandant 
of the Marine Corps 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 04367-03

    Original file (04367-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board does not, however, agree with the petitioner that complete removal of the Reviewing Officer's comments is warranted. Recommend approval of Majo his failure of selection if t h e e d comments are removed from his record. In our opinion, if the PERB does remove the petitioned comments, it would marginally increase the competitiveness of the record.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06123-02

    Original file (06123-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) has directed that the report for 12 July 1997 to 31 July 1998 be modified by removing the “Exercises acceptable judgment and following from the reporting senior (RS) comments: leadership.” Petitioner further requested removal of his failure of selection before the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, so that he will be considered by the selection board next convened to consider officers of his...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04368-01

    Original file (04368-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    request for the By enclosure 3. a copy of the Advisory Opinion contained at (3), this Headquarters provide encl ith Review Branch Personnel Management Division By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY ,._iDQUARTERS UNITLD STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROAD QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB 2 1 MAY 2001 From: To: Subj: CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) MC0 1610.11C Per the reference, 1. has reviewed allegations of error and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05326-01

    Original file (05326-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    That Petitioner ’s naval record be corrected by removing his failures by the FY 1996 and 1997 Major Selection Boards. 's record and his FY-96 and FY-97 920528. Point of contact Major, U.S. Marine Corps Head, Officer Counseling and Evaluation Section Officer Assignment Branch Personnel Management Division DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS D 3280 RUSSELL ROA QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 221 34-51 0 Y 3 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1600 MMOA-4 14 Aug 01 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06690-01

    Original file (06690-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed that the contested fitness report for 1 August to 8 December 1991 be modified by removing all but the first sentence of the reporting senior’s comments in section C. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 October 2001. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05485-01

    Original file (05485-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS Y HEADQUARTERS 3280 RUSSELL ROA D QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22 134-5 103 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1600 MMOA-4 10 Jul 01 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: (a) MMER Request of 09 Jul 01. in the case USMC Recommend approval of 1. of his failure of selection to Lieutenant Colonel. Lieutenant successfully petitioned the Performance Evaluation Review Board for removal of the Reviewing Officer co Transfer...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07122-01

    Original file (07122-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    As indicated in enclosure the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) has directed removal of the contested fitness reports. appropriate identifying data concerning the reports and state that they have been removed by direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps and cannot be made available in any form to selection boards and reviewing authorities. for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) issue Accordingly, your case will be forwarded to the Board for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08086-02

    Original file (08086-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modification of the contested fitness report for 29 December 1992 to 26 April 1993 by removing the last sentence of the reviewing officer’s comments. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board 2002, a copy of which is attached. VIRGINIA 22 ROAD 134.6 103 IN REPLY REFER To: 1610 MMER/PERB SEP 1 2 2002 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 02992-99

    Original file (02992-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07330-02

    Original file (07330-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    atbched as enclosure CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the contents of enclosure (3), the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting limited relief, specifically, removal of Petitioner ’s failure of selection for promotion. That Petitioner’s record be corrected so that he will be considered by the earliest possible selection board convened to consider officers of his category for promotion to lieutenant colonel as...