DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Y
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SMC
Docket No: 03751-00
15 June 2000
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
your fitness report for 1 March to 27 July 1998.
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed that the
memorandum for the record be filed in your official record stating name, grade and title of
the third sighting officer.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 15 June 2000. 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
24 May 2000, a copy of which is attached.
In addition, the Board considered the report of
(PERB), dated
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.
effected by CMC has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be
furnished upon request.
In view of the above, your application for relief beyond that
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.
regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official
In this
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
.
1
-.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280RUSSELLROA
D
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA
22134-510
3
TO:
IN REPLY REFER
1610
MMER/PERB
2 4 MAY
2008
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Sub-i:
Ref:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON
SERGEAN
BCNR APPLICATION
IN THE CASE OF
USMC
(a)
(b)
Sergea
MC0
P1610.7D
D Form 149 of 9 Mar 00
w/Ch l-5
Per
MC0
1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
1.
with three members present,
Sergean
of the fitness report for the period 980301 to 980727 (TR) was
requested.
governing submission of the report.
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive
petition contained in reference (a).
met on 18 May 2000 to consider
Removal
The petitioner argues that the report was incorrectly entered
2.
into the Automated Fitness Report System (AFRS) as an "adverse"
He points out that although he was advised to append a
report.
rebuttal, there are no marks in Section B that render the report
"adverse" and that no Third Officer Sighting occurred. To
support his appeal,
a copy of the fitness report at issue, his Master Brief Sheet,
and his Official Military Personnel File.
the petitioner furnishes his own statement,
In its proceedings,
3.
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
The following is offered as relevant:
written and filed.
the PERB concluded that the report is
a.
While the petitioner is correct that none of the Section
B markings render the report "adverse", the tenor of some of the
is such that both the petitioner and the
verbiage in Section C
performance evaluation system were best served by allowing him to
append a statement in his own behalf.
opportunity and surfaced his disagreements with the overall
evaluation.
differences and concurred in the Reporting Senior's appraisal.
Albeit brief, the Reviewing Officer resolved those
He availed himself of that
b.
The initials contained on the right-hand side of the
fifth page of the petitioner's rebuttal statement indicate a
Third Officer Sighting had been completed.
however, was incomplete relative to name, grade, and billet.
This Headquarters has since corrected that administrative
oversight via the Memorandum for the Record (MFR) of 19 April
The information,
.
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISOR
SERGEAN
IN THE CASE OF
SMC
2000, appended to t
Officer as Lieutena
Officer
h
n
, 1st Battalion, 12th Marines
.
which identifies the Third Sightin
g
11, Commanding
C .
The petitioner has not shown any proof of unjust, biased,
or unfair circumstances that would contribute to the report being
an invalid appraisal.
correctly processed and entered into his official record as an
"adverse" fitness report.
Succinctly stated, the report was
The Board's opinion,
4.
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
of
based on deliberation and secret ballot
ficial military record.
Sergean
5.
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
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02974-01
Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. They were unable to find that block 18 was incorrectly marked to show the report was based on “daily” observation, noting observation need not be direct. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04534-01
regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official In this records. Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosure : DEPART h&ADQUARTERS QUANT M ENT OF THE NAVY UN 3280 I CO ITED STATES RUSSELL ROAD I RG I N I A , V 22 134 CORP S MAR -5 I NE 103 : REPLY REFER TO I N 1610 MMER/PERB 2001 ; JON 1 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: Encl: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00200-01
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 | CY2001 | 07843-00
The Board found that the reporting senior adequately justified the adverse marks assigned in the contested fitness report. Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosures DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV Y HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280RUSSELLROA QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22 D 134-5 103 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB 2000 \ 4 NOV MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05117-01
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 | 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 | 05330-01
Evaluation Review Board Personnel Management Division Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps 2 NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS DEPARTMENT OF THE 3280 RUSSELL ROAD QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1070 MIFD 'AUG 0 i,jbi I, MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF SERGEANT SMC application with supporting documents has been reviewed concerning his...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 05176-03
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 5 June 2003, a copy of which is attached. Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MASTER...
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 | 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...