Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02724-01
Original file (02724-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

SMC
Docket No: 02724-01
28 June 2001

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 28 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.
the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated
29 March 2001, a copy of which is attached.

In addition, the Board considered the report of

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. The statement of 11 December 2000 from the legal services chief
did not persuade the Board that you rated higher marks in “courage” and “professional
military education, 
” or in any other area of the contested fitness report. They were unable to
find you were not counseled about your performance. In this regard, they generally do not
grant relief on the basis of an alleged absence of counseling, since counseling takes many
forms, so the recipient may not recognize it as such when it is provided.
above, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel
will be furnished upon request.

In view of the

&umstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be

It is regretted that the 
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

I

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280  RUSSELL ROAD

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22

 

134-5  

103

161 0
MMER/PERB
2 

MAR 

301

9 

a 

7*z?Ll-0)

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:
‘

4 

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
SERGE

USMC

(a) 
(b) 

SergeariBD  Form 149 of 17 Jan 01
MC0 

P1610.7E  

w/Ch 1

Per 

1 .
with three members present,

MC0 

1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

met on 28 March 2001 to consider

etition contained in reference (a).
ort for the period 990401 to 000131 (TD) was

Removal

requested.
Items El (courage) and  
removed.
governing submission of the report.

In the alternative, he asks that the  

‘B" markings in

Gl (professional military education) be
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive

The petitioner argues that he was never counseled as

2.
prescribed by reference (b), and therefore, unable to correct
any deficiencies.
of these matters until his performance had fallen below the
Reporting Senior's expectations.
petitioner furnishes a letter from Master Gunnery Sergeant
a copy of the challenged fitness report, and his own statement
(with attachments).

To support his appeal, the

It is his position that he was never informed

In its proceedings,

3.
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
written and filed.
The following is offered as relevant:

the PERB concluded that the report is

a.

At the outset,

the Board stresses that there are no

purported deficiencies identified in the fitness report at
issue.
in full compliance with the provisions of reference (b).

It is not "adverse"

and appears to have been completed

b.

Absent 

anythin
Sergean

Master Gunnery
or lowered markings in Items El and  
appropriate.
The fact that markings may have changed from one
reporting period to another does not invalidate a given report.

Gl appear to be accurate and

contrary, and not withstanding
advocacy statement, the reduced

. 

*

,i

a7ay
-cj

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
SERGEAN

SMC

Rather, it simply reflects the amount of effort exerted and
accomplishments attained during that finite period.

C .

Succinctly stated,

‘burden of proof necessary to demonstrate the existence of either
an error or an injustice.

the petitioner has failed to meet the

The Board's opinion,

4 .
vote, is that the contested fitness report,
should remain a part of Sergeant
record.

as configured,
fficial military

based on deliberation and secret ballot

5.

The case is forwarded for final action.

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

2



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04557-01

    Original file (04557-01.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. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 1 June 2001, a copy of which is attached. met on 3 May 2001 to consider The petitioner states that the report contained in his 2 .

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03795-01

    Original file (03795-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 4 May 2001, a copy of which is attached. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROAD 22 QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 134-5 103 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB 4 MAY 2001 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02721-01

    Original file (02721-01.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 found the incident cited, described by your service record page 11 counseling entry, the reporting senior and the third sighting officer as “minor,” was nevertheless important enough to warrant mention in the contested fitness report. Reference fitness report for the period 971101...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00200-01

    Original file (00200-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 April 2001. 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. , DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROA D QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22 134-5 103 REFER TO: IN...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07271-00

    Original file (07271-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 January 2001. 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 (PERB) dated 23 October 2000 with enclosures, a copy of which is attached. ‘\ ‘: 1 i/-f{_ “,’ ‘I From : D...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05819-01

    Original file (05819-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 August 2001. 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 20 July 2001, a copy of which is attached. Simply stated, this is a matter of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04367-00

    Original file (04367-00.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. JUIi MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINI GUNNERY SERGE E OF USMC (a) (b) (c) GySg MC0 MC0 P1610.7C Form 149 of 10 Apr 00 l-4 w/Ch 1-5 Per MC0 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05117-01

    Original file (05117-01.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. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 2 1 June 2001, a copy of which is attached. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB, except they noted that in addition to the third...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06691-01

    Original file (06691-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2003 | 06069-03

    Original file (06069-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 August 2003. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. While you are correct that your record reflects no counseling entry about the incident cited in the contested fitness report, the Board was unable to were not counseled about the incident, noting that the third sighting...