Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01130-01
Original file (01130-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT  OF THE  NAVY 

BOARD  FOR  C O R R E C T I O N  OF  NAVAL  RECORDS 

2   NAVY  ANNEX 

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

BJG 
Docket No:  1130-01 
9 March 2001 

Dear Serg- 

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  modified your contested 
fitness report  for  1 April  1999 to  31 March  2000 to  reflect that  you  were the subject of 
commendatory material. 

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 7 February 2001, a copy of which is attached. 

After carefid and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board  found that the 
evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material e p r  or 
injustice.  In this connection, the Board  substantially concurred with the comments contained 
in the report of the PERB. 

Specifically concerning your contested report for 1 October 1998 to 31 March  1999, the 
Board  was  unable to find that your professional military education (PME) warranted a higher 
mark in  block G. 1.  The supporting statement at enclosure (3) to your application, where 
your first sergeant expressed his belief that your neighbor harassed you, did not  support a 
finding that your reporting senior unjustly marked you  down as a result of  the neighbor's 
complaints against you.  In this regard, they  noted  the contested report makes no  mention of 
this matter. 

In  view  of  the above, 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 N A W  

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES  MARINE CORPS 

3280 RUSSELL ROAD 

QUANTICO,  YlROlNlA 22 124-5 103 

IN REPLY  REFER TQ: 
1610 
MMER/ PERB 
;7 

FEB 2001 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF 

NAVAL RECORDS 

- 

Subi:  MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  (PERB) 

ADVISORY OPI&IQ-&I  ON BCNR ,flE&LJ$$BTJ@N  IN THE CASE -- OF. 

Ref: 

(a) Sergean 
(b) MCO P1610.7E 

DD Form 149 of 21 Nov 00 

-  - 

1.  Per MCO 1610.11Cf the Performance Evaluation Review Board, 
with three members  resent, met on 2 February 2001 to consider 
tition contained in reference  (a).  Removal 
Sergean 
of the 
tness reports was requested: 

- 

Report A -  981001 to 990331 (AN) 

Report B -  990401 to 000331 (AN) 

Reference  (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing 
the submission of both reports. 

2 .   The petitioner contends that neither the Billet Description 
nor the Billet Accomplishments on either Report. A or B are 
accurate.  These omissions, he infers, constitute inaccurate and 
unjust fitness reports.  In addition to the foregoing, the 
petitioner also disagrees with several of the "low markings" 
throughout each report and believes they may have been the 
result of an ongoing dispute between he and an Air Force Staff 
Sergeant within the family housing community.  To support ,his 
appeal, the petitioner furnishes several advocacy statements and 
a copy of commendatory correspondence. 

3.  In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that, with one minor 
exception, both reports are administratively correct and pro- 
cedurally complete as written and filed.  The following is 
offered as relevant: 

a.  The markings on both reports appear consistent with the 

respective narrative comments in Section I.  The reports are the 
first and second observed evaluations submitted'by the same 

Subj:  MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  (PERB) 

- 

ADVISORY 
SERGEANT 

IN THE CASE OF 
USMC 

Reporting Senior, with the latter report being the higher of the 
two. 

b.  Not withstanding the statements furnished with reference 

(a), the Board finds nothing of a documentary nature to prdve 
that the petitioner warranted more than what has been reFGrded. 
Absent s,uch information, the PERB views the challenged reports 
as objective and legitimate appraisals of performance during the 
stated periods. 

c.  Since the petitioner was the recipient of commendatory 

material during the period covered by Report B, Item 6a 
(commendatory) should have been marked "yes"  and an amplifying 
statement included in Section I.  The Board does not find that 
this omission invalidates an otherwise completely acceptable 
evaluation and has directed the necessary corrective action. 

4.  The Board's  opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot 
vote, is that Report A and the amended version of Report B 
should remain a part of Sergeant 
fficial military 
record.  The limited corrective action identified in 
subparagraph 3c is considered sufficient. 

The case is forwarded for final action. 

Evaluation Review Board  .. 
Personnel Management Division 
Manpower and Reserve Affairs 
Department 
By direction of the Commandant 
of the Marine Corps 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05106-99

    Original file (05106-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2001 | 03138-01

    Original file (03138-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed amendment of the contested fitness report to reflect you were the subject of a meritorious mast. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 18 April 2001, a copy of which is attached.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04822-99

    Original file (04822-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The adverse letter qualifies as "other reports, or correspondence of a military nature" per paragraph b . d. The adverse letter was the result of a report to CMC Sergean Sergean (MMPR-2) by known by this Divis rebutted by 4. provide advisory opinion and recommendations. the adverse fitness report precipitated the adverse letter.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 07213-98

    Original file (07213-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 02766-03

    Original file (02766-03.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. Report B - 940419 to 950228 (AN). c. While the advocacy letters from Captain-and Sample all speak highly of the Master Sergeants -and petitioner's performance during the period covered by Report B, the Board concludes that none of those three individuals were in the petitioner's direct...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08312-01

    Original file (08312-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    : MEMORANDUM'FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: E CASE OF GUNNERY SERG USMCR Sergea Gunnery 1. has been reviewed concerning his request for removal of the Administrative Remarks (1070) NAVMC 990722 from his service records. Paragraph 1006.1 of Command The following comments/opinions concerning the page 11 entry 6. dated 990722 are provided: a. rection of Naval Records disapprove equest for removal of the Administrative 11) page 11 entry dated 990722 from...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03130-01

    Original file (03130-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed amendment of the contested fitness report by changing the entry in item 17b (whether the Marine has been the subject of an adverse report from outside the reporting chain) from “Yes” to “No.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 August 2001. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 08472-98

    Original file (08472-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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 - 4 U A R T L R S U N I T E D STATES M A R I N E CORPS 3 2 8 0 R U S S E...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 02223-99

    Original file (02223-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested fitness report by removing the sentence "Sgt [your last name] balances work and a difficult situation in an unselfish and unswerving manner." In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 29 March 1999, a copy of which is attached. The petitioner believes that the markings in Items 13c (administrative duties), 13e (handling...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03156-01

    Original file (03156-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...