DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SMC
Docket No: 03130-01
10 August 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. You requested removal of the
fitness report for ‘1 July 1997 to 28 February 1998.
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. 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 17 April 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 warranting complete removal of the contested report. 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
3280 RUSSELL ROA
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22 134-5
D
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
10 3
IN REPLY REFER TO:
161 0
MMER/PERB
>'7 APR
2001
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:
Ref:
mRmE CORPS PERFOR
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
SERGEAN
MAN CE EVALUATI
REVIEW
ON
USMC
B~ARD.(PERB)
(a) Sergeant
(b)
MC0
P1610.7D
'DD Form 149 of 19 Jan 01
w/Ch l-4
Per
MC0
1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
met on 11 April 2001 to consider
1.
with three members present,
Sergean
of the fitness report for the period 970701 to 980228 (AN) was
requested.
directive governing submission of the report.
petition contained in reference (a).
(b) is the performance evaluation
Reference
Removal
The petitioner argues that the marks of "yes" in Items 17b
2.
(adverse) and Item 19 (qualification for promotion) do not
correspond.
be removed.
Hence, he believes the report is invalid and should
In its proceedings,
the PERB concluded that, with one
the report is both administratively correct and
3.
exception,
procedurally complete as written and filed.
offered as relevant:
The following is
a.
The Reporting Senior incorrectly marked
"yes" in Item
17b.
This block is to be marked "yes" only when the Marine
reported on has been the subject of adverse material from
’ Assignment to weight control does
outside the reporting chain.
Accordingly, the Board is
not constitute such an occurrence.
directing appropriate corrections to both the fitness report and
the petitioner's Master Brief Sheet.
b.
The report at issue was rendered adverse because the
petitioner had not been within Marine Corps standards for
height/weight during the reporting period.
weight control and subsequently removed.
(b), causes the report to be adverse for the entire period.
He was placed on
This, per reference
.
.
Subj:
M ARINE CORPS PERF
ADVIS
SERGE
O RMA NC E EVAL UATION
REVIEW BOARD
(PERB)
SE OF
USMC
C .
The Reporting Senior exercised his own judgmental
He evidently
evaluation in opting to mark
believed that even though the petitioner was not within height/
weight standards at one point during the reporting period, he
was still fully qualified for promotion.
"yes" in Item 19.
The Board's opinion,
4.
vote, is that the contested fitness report, as modified, should
fficial military record.
remain a part of Serge
ied in subparagraph 3a is
The limited corrective
considered sufficient.
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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02641-00
The following comments concerning the page 11 entry dated 960112 4. are provided: a. The following comments concerning the page 11 entry dated 980326 5. are provided:' a. he was he statement would be filed acknowledged the counseling " to" make a statement in Again, it is noted that a copy of the rebuttal statement Sergean furthe b. Sergean does not provide documented evidence to support his claim that the page 11 entry is in error or unjust.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08366-02
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modification of your fitness report for 18 April to 1 September 1998 by removing the last two sentences from 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 15 November 2002. Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISOR SERGEAN HE CASE OF STAFF USMC despite the difficulties...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04197-02
Report A - 990827 to 991231 (AN). Report C - 000630 to 001231 (AN). Evaluation Review Board, request for May 2002 to consider Staff removal of his fitness report for the period 010101 to 010209 Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive (CH).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08165-00
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has amended the contested report for 19 September 1997 to 28 February 1998 by removing the reviewing officer’s comments. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 7 June 2001, a copy of which is attached. The Board agrees with the petitioner concerning the Reviewing Officer's comments included with Report B. not, however, find that complete removal...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04541-01
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 4 June 2001, a copy of which is attached. The petitioner states that on the day the report was written yet had never been placed 2. he was reported as being...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03738-02
petitioner's assignment to the Military Appearance Program was correctly included on the fitness reports. As with Report A, the adversity of Report B was that he was assigned to the Military Appearance Program. rmance Evaluation Review Board Personnel Management Division Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps 2 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROA D QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-510 3 MEMORANDUM FOR...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03138-01
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 | 08072-02
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. height, weight, and body fat as He was also not within established Marine Corps 73", 227 pounds, and The report at issue reflects the petitioner's weight standards for his 19%, Subi: J MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD ADVIS SERGE E CASE OF STAFF USMC (PERB) respectively (over...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06842-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review (PERB), dated 23 August 2001, a copy of which is attached. 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. error to invalidate the entire report and has directed the appropriate corrective action.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06881-99
They were unable to find how, if at all, his report influenced your nonjudicial punishment or your removal from the 1998 staff sergeant selection list, nor could they find how he changed his opinions following the review of his report by the CO. We reviewed Sergeant documents concerning his Administrative Remarks page 11 entries dated 980804 and 981125, Offenses and Punishment page 12 entry dated 990311 and CMC letter 1450/3 MMPR-2 dated 2. In view of the above, it is recommended...