DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2
NAW ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
USMCR
BJG
Docket No:
30 June 2000
3763-00
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 29 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. In addition, the Board considered the report of
the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board
26 May 2000, a copy of which is attached. They also considered your rebuttal letter dated
10 June 2000.
(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
omitted matters so significant that they should have been mentioned expressly. They did not
agree with your contention that your designations as a mission instructor and helicopter
aircraft commander contradicted the reviewing officer’s comments. In view of the above,
your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be
furnished upon request.
PERIL They were unable to find that your contested fitness reports
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
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED
STATES MARINE CORPS
~~~ORUSSELLROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22
134-5
103
TO:
REFER
IN REPLY
1610
MMER/PERB
2000
2
6 MAY
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON
CAPTAIN
BCNR APPLICATION
IN THE CASE OF
SMC
Ref:
(a) Captai
Pl
(b)
MC0
D Form 149 of 15 Mar 00
-5
MC0
1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
Per
1.
with thr
Captain
of the following fitness reports was requested:
ers present,
petition contained in reference (a).
met on 18 May 2000 to consider
Removal
a.
b.
Report A
- 970720 to 980212 (CH)
Report B
- 980213 to 980806 (DC)
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing
the submission of both reports.
The petitioner contends that the Reviewing Officer's comments
2.
appended to both reports are unjust, vague, and inaccurate. He
also believes that the performance evaluation system was used as
a punitive measure in connection with personality differences.
To support his appeal,
and copies of designation letters (Terrain Flight Instructor and
Air Refueling Instructor).
3.
the PERB concluded that both reports are
administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and
filed.
The following is offered as relevant:
the petitioner furnishes his own statement
In its proceedings,
a.
Not only was the petitioner aware of the nature of both
reports when he signed Item 22 on each document, but he was
contacted by this Headquarters on 26 August 1998 and 3 February
1999 and offered an opportunity to officially acknowledge and
respond to both reports.
to this Headquarters' correspondence.
were correctly entered into the petitioner's official record,
along with documentation verifying the attempts to obtain
rebuttal statements.
contacted by a member of the Personnel Management Support Branch
Finally, the petitioner was personally
On both occasions he failed to respond
Consequently, both reports
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY
CAPTAIN
HE CASE OF
USMC
(MMSB) on 23 March 1999 and confirmed his decision to not
respond.
b.
The petitioner's performance of record, as documented by
That the Reviewing
the Reporting Senior, speaks for itself.
Officer did not totally concur does not somehow invalidate the
report.
not reason to either remove or modify the report.
Likewise, the undocumented disclaimer to counseling is
. As a final matter
Fo substantiate the
the Board finds nothing in reference
pbtitioner's allegation that a "person-
(a)
ality difference"
contained in the challenged fitness reports.
the petitioner has failed to meet the burden of proof necessary
to establish the existence of either an error or an injustice.
somehow tainted the overall evaluations
Succinctly stated,
The Board's opinion,
based on deliberation and secret ballot
4.
vote, is that the contested fitness reports should remain a part
of Captain
official military record.
5
.
The case is forwarded for final action.
Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps
Deputy Director
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01105-99
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 PERB concluded that the report is a. Notwithstand' the statements of both the petitioner and there is no showing that the petitioner tunity to append an official rebuttal to When the petitioner acknowledged the adverse First Lieutenan was not afforde the fitness report. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06047-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 November 2001. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 3 1 July 2001, a copy of which is attached. ons of the female captain not- ad a duty as an officer and a and as a Staff Platoon Commander at The Basic School, omments in Section K4 of the ntire situation in its He...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04998-00
Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280RUSSELL ROA D QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22 134-5 103 IN REPLY REFER TO: 161 0 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF STAFF USMC SERGEAN (a) (b) SSgt. VIRGINIA 22134-5103 NAVY IN REPLY REFER TO: 107 0 .MI MEMORANDUM FOR...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02797-00
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. ARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS ~~EORUSSELLROAD QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR E CASE OF USMC (a)...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07271-00
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 | 06365-01
In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the 10 April 2001 from a Marine Corps lieutenant colonel (enclosure (6) to your application), did not persuade the Board that the remaining reviewing officer comments at issue were unjustified. 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. nor given a copy of the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01351-00
2 Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF FIRST LIEUTENAN USMC 5. petitioned the Performance Evaluation Review Board removal of the To Temporary Duty fitness report of 980701 to First Lieutenant 990112. his failures of selection. The record reflects less competitive Section B marks in Regular Duties, Administrative Duties, Handling Officers, Training Personnel, Military Presence, Attention to Duty, Initiative,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06721-00
t for the period 960914 to 970710 (TR) was Removal of Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive requested. evidenced in the final paragraph of enclosure (6) to reference REPORTING SENIORS HERE WILL BE (a) (i.e., "FITNESS REPORTS. THE FITNESS REPORTS.").
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08253-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 3 1 October 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. d. e. f. g - Including paraphrased statements from the JAG manual investigations is precluded by reference (b) The JAG manual investigation was...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08696-02
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 27 September 2002, a copy of which is attached. and it is 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. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation The petitioner states the challenged report is "undeserved", 2. yet provides no statement...