Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03795-01
Original file (03795-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

SMC
Docket No: 
10 August 2001

03795-01

Dear Gunnery 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.

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 4 May 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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained
in the report of the PERB. Accordingly, your application 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 
regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all 

this.

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 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 APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
GUNNERY SERGEANT

J

USMC

(PERB)

(a) 
(b) 

GySgt.
MC0 

P1610.7E 

DD Form 149 of 3 

w/Ch l-2

Ott 00

Per 

MC0 

1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

1.
with three members
petition contained in reference (a).
Gunnery 
Removal of the fitness report for the period 991001 to 000514
Reference (b) is the performance evalu-
(TD) was requested.
ation directive governing submission of the report.

present, met on  3 May 2001 to consider

Sergean

The petitioner contends that the markings reflected in the

2.
challenged fitness report do not accurately reflect his
performance during the stated period.
the petitioner furnishes his own statement, a copy of the
fitness report at issue,
four advocacy statements,
Marines who he trained.

a copy of a formal counseling letter,
and copies of training records of four

To support his appeal,

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.

Not withstanding the documentation furnished with

the Board finds nothing of a substantive nature

reference (a),
to prove the report is either unjust or inaccurate.
petitioner and others may believe his overall performance rated
higher marks,
officially evaluating and recording his observations.
precisely what the Board believes is reflected in the fitness
report under consideration.

it is the Reporting Senior who is charged with

While the

That is

b.

A review of the petitioner's Master Brief Sheet reveals

that when the challenged fitness report was processed and
accepted into the petitioner's official military personnel file,
the Reporting Senior had written 25 fitness reports, on Marines

Subj:

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

MC

With a cumulative relative value
in the grade Gunnery Sergeant.
of 85.56, it appears as though the Reporting Senior seldom marks
"B."
any higher than a 
no error or injustice.

we discern absolutely

Succinctly stated,

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

based on deliberation and secret ballot

official military record.

The Board's opinion,

Sergea

51

 

.

The case is forwarded for final action.

ChairpGrson, 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 | 07267-01

    Original file (07267-01.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. The following is offered as relevant: a. Evidently both the petitioner and the Reporting Seniors the Marine reported on needs to be seen by a for both reports have misunderstood the criteria contained in references (b) and (c) concerning weight issues. To be placed on Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW...

  • 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 | 08308-01

    Original file (08308-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 15 November 2001, a copy of which is attached. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board. .--- -----T- Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • 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...

  • 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 | 02724-01

    Original file (02724-01.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. 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. petitioner furnishes a letter from Master Gunnery Sergeant a copy of the challenged fitness report, and his own...

  • 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 | CY2002 | 08674-02

    Original file (08674-02.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 27 September 2002, a copy of which is attached. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation The petitioner contends the report is substantively 2.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10142-02

    Original file (10142-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 8 November 2002, 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. letters do not overshadow or otherwise negate the evaluations of Again, those Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD...