Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04100-00
Original file (04100-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

Y

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

SMC
Docket No: 0410040
7 July 2000

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 7 July 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 (PERB), dated
1 June 2000, 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 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

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

~~~ORUSSELLROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22 134-5 103

+

IN  REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISOR
SERGEAN

THE CASE OF
USMC

(a) 
(b) 

Sergean
MC0 

P1610.7D

Form 149 of 8 Mar 00

Per 

MC0 

1610.11C,  the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

1.
with three members present,
Sergean
the fitness report for the period 950601 to 960229 (AN) was
requested.
governing submission of the report.

etition contained in reference (a).

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive

met on 4 May 2000 to consider

Removal of

The petitioner contends that he was never allowed to make a

2.
rebuttal statement to the fitness report.
case, the petitioner furnishes a copy of a letter from this
Headquarters (MMSB-32) to the petitioner's command indicating
that adverse verbiage had been included in the report and a
requirement to afford him an opportunity to comment.

To substantiate his

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.

Simply stated, there is nothing in the challenged fitness

report that meets the definition of an "adverse" fitness report.
There are no marks in Section B below "above average" and nothing
in Section C indicates any failure of mission accomplishment.
The statement that the petitioner would benefit from improvement
in a few areas is viewed as how he could move from "above
average" and "excellent"
to the "outstanding" category.

in a few Section B qualities and traits

b.

In looking at the date of the letter from this Head-
quarters (2 July 1996) and the date of the fitness report of
record 
was rewritten.
make the report "adverse"

Obviously the Reporting Senior did not intend to
accordingly-

1996), one could easily conclude that the report

and modified the report  

;a August 

(

I t

Subj 

:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY
SERGEANT

THE CASE OF
SMC

The Board's opinion,

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

based on deliberation and secret ballot

Sergean

icial military record.

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

a-



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00224-01

    Original file (00224-01.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. ::I MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISOR SERGEAN THE CASE OF STAFF ,USMC (a) (b) (c) SSgt. appeal, the petitioner furnishes his own statement detailing his perception of the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02641-00

    Original file (02641-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 08696-02

    Original file (08696-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03751-00

    Original file (03751-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04197-02

    Original file (04197-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 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 | 04711-01

    Original file (04711-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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 etition contained in reference (a).

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04811-00

    Original file (04811-00.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. 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. Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORP 3280RUSSELL...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08897-02

    Original file (08897-02.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 4 October 2002, a copy of which is attached. Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosure HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3250 RUSSELL...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06881-99

    Original file (06881-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...