Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04283-01
Original file (04283-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

BJG
Docket No: 4283-01
28 June 2001

USMCR

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 27 June 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
22 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
PERB. They did note that all the commendatory material you received
in the report of the 
was dated after the reporting period, so the PERB action amending your contested fitness
report to reflect you were the subject of commendatory material was unwarranted. However,
the Board felt it would not be remedial to cancel the PERB action.
your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be
furnished upon request.

In view of the above,

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be
entitled,to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new
taken. You are 
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

k

Enclosure

h’At?TMENT OF THE NAVY

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280  RUSSELL ROA D

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA  22 134-S 103

INar#?EFER TO:

MMER/PERB
2 2 MAY 

2UUl

.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  
ADVISORY
LIEUTENAN

N THE CASE OF FIRST
USMC

(PERB)

(a) 
(b) 

1stLt
MC0 

P1610.7E  

DD Form 149 of 30 Jan 01

w/Ch 1-2

Per 

MC0 

1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

1.
with three members present,
Lieutenant
of the fitness report for the period 991213 to 000531 (AN) was
requested.
directive governing submission of the report.

met on 16 May 2001 to consider First
Removal

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation

etition contained in reference (a).

The petitioner infers that the report is inconsistent. He

2.
bases his argument on the fact that the report contains adverse
comments concerning his professionalism, yet he received three
(LOA), and in the past, was the subject
Letters of Appreciation  
of dissimilar evaluations from his previous Commanding Officer.
the petitioner furnishes copies of the
To support his appeal,
LOA's and a copy of an endorsement on an Administrative Action
form.

In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that, with one
3.
exception, the report is both administratively correct and
procedurally complete as written and filed.
offered as relevant:

The following is

a.

Not withstanding the petitioner's arguments and con-

tinuing dissatisfaction with the report,
included with reference (a) that contradicts or otherwise calls
into question the accuracy or fairness of the challenged fitness
The Board specifically notes that the Reviewing Officer
report.
succinctly 
evaluation.
Of particular note
comment that the "adverse status

resolired the petitioner's

disagreement with the

the Board finds nothing

d.

b.

While the 

not somehow invalidate the overall appraisal.
snpri fir  
-L------
-

lREACHCRF,ST 

and the  

event 
_.._
_ 

7flflfl\ 

\---- 

-__-_.-I^ 

----, 

- 

---- 

----

LOA's speak well of the petitioner, they do
One was for a

other was for

_____ 

_ 

____ 

 

voluntarv

_~_~~~ 

~~

_ 

___ 

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)

N THE CASE OF FIRST
USMC

As a matter of information,

The one which he identifies as enclosure (1) to his

LOA's rather than the three identified by the

efforts in the civilian community.
there were two  
petitioner.
letter of 30 January 2001 is an endorsement to the 27 July 2000
LOA.
(commendatory) of the report should have reflected a mark and
that Section I should have contained information regarding the
two 
petitioner's Master Brief Sheet have been directed.

Appropriate corrections to the report and the

the Board observes that Item 6a

In this regard,

LOA's.

The Board's opinion,

4.
vote, is that the contested fitness report, as modified, should
remain a part of First Lieutena
record.
subparagraph 3b is considered sufficient.

The limited corrective action identified in

based on deliberation and secret ballot

fficial  military

5.

The case is forwarded for fin

U.S. Marine Corps

Colonel,
Deputy Director
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

2



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05613-00

    Original file (05613-00.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. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 14 August 2000, and a memorandum for the record dated 11 July 2001, copies of which are attached. nd Lieutenant Colon challenged report centers around the accuracy...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03138-01

    Original file (03138-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2001 | 04368-01

    Original file (04368-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    request for the By enclosure 3. a copy of the Advisory Opinion contained at (3), this Headquarters provide encl ith Review Branch Personnel Management Division By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY ,._iDQUARTERS UNITLD STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROAD QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB 2 1 MAY 2001 From: To: Subj: CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) MC0 1610.11C Per the reference, 1. has reviewed allegations of error and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05812-01

    Original file (05812-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 August 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation Sergean \ the petitioner denies that Maj The petitioner contends the command failed to follow proper 2. procedures in investigating allegations; that he was basically found...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08005-01

    Original file (08005-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 12 October 2001, a copy of which is attached. ness report for the period 010101 to 010226 Reference (b) is the performance evaluation 2. This was Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON SERGEA BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF STAFF USMC considered especially relevant given the age of the report when reference (a) was first...

  • 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06835-01

    Original file (06835-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 28 August 2001, a copy of which is attached. matter is that Lieutenant Colonel Officer for the challenged fitness report. of the reporting period, The fact of the s not the Reviewing For the last 52 days his successor (Lieutenant Colonel Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07545-01

    Original file (07545-01.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 20 September 2001, a copy of which is attached. applies Report A - 971122 to 980608 (CD) - Reference (c) Report B - 980609 to 980731 (DC) - Reference (d) Report C -...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05307-01

    Original file (05307-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removal of the contested fitness report for 1 November 1987 to 29 February 1988. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board 2001, a copy of which is attached. (3) The petitioner is incorrect in her statement it was the petitioner who First, concerning the failure of the Reporting Senior to annotate paternity leave in Report B. signed Item 22...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07130-01

    Original file (07130-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed fitness report for 1 October 1998 to 19 April 1999 be amended by adding officer’s Addendum Page dated 26 June 2001. that the contested the third sighting A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 October 2001. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB),...