Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04457-00
Original file (04457-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 203704100

SMC
Docket No: 04457-00
24 August 2000

Dear Staff 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 24 August 2060. 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 23 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 
3 December 1999 did not expressly indicate that the contested fitness report should be
removed; rather, he stated that “the multiple re-writes were excessive and confusing for
everyone involved. 
” 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 noted that the reporting senior ’s statement dated

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

3280  RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO, 

VIRGINIA  22   134-5 103

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
2 3 

JUN  

?OflO

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE
ADVISO
SERGEA

E'JALUATION  REVIEW BOARD  

(PERB)

THE CASE OF STAFF
USMC

(a) 
(b) 

SSgt.
MC0 

P1610.7D 

DD,Form  149 of 28 Mar 00

w/Ch 1-4

Per 

MC0 

1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

1.
with three members present,
Sergean
of the fitness report for the period 970905 to 971231 (AN) was
requested.
governing submission of the report.

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive

petition contained in reference (a).

met on 21 June 2000 to consider Staff

Removal

The petitioner contends the report should be removed from his

2.
record because of its administrative handling/processing. To

his own statement,
and Sergeant Major
llenged report.

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.

What is of paramount importance is the following
statement made by the petitioner in paragraph two of his
statement of 28 Mar 00:
content of the aforementioned fitness report.
administrative handling of the  
was re-written."
neither this Headquarters nor the PERB condone the late
submission of fitness reports,
invalidate an otherwise acceptable performance evaluation.

With this in mind,

fitrep, and the multiple times it

we emphasize that while

that fact alone does not serve to

‘It is not my intention to dispute the

I dispute the

b.

The Board views the delay in submitting the final version

to the diligence of the Reviewing and Third Sighting Officers in
By identifying discrepancies,
the execution of their duties.
inconsistencies and/or oversights,
report back for correction,
reference (b).
appears inordinate,

they were upholding the tenets  
While the period of time involved in this case

at no time was the petitioner deprived of any

and subsequently referring the

of__

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE
ADVISO
SERGEA

EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)

E CASE OF STAFF
MC

procedural process.
not result in either an inaccuracy or injustice.

Likewise, we conclude that such a delay did

C .

Absent anything to-the contrary, and not withstanding
the documentation furnished with reference (a), the challenged
objective appraisal of the
report is viewed as a legitimate,
petitioner's performance during the stated period.
He was
afforded every opportunity to sight and respond to the comments
of both the Reporting Senior and Reviewing Officer (which he
did).

The Board's opinion,

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

based on deliberation and secret ballot

Sergea

official military record.

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



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02492-00

    Original file (02492-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 5 April 2000, a copy of which is attached. met on 4 April 2000 to consider Staff Removal Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive ,petition contained in reference (a).

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08332-01

    Original file (08332-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 January 2002. 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 26 November 2001, a copy of which is attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06262-00

    Original file (06262-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The attached memorandum for the record dated 12 January 2001 reflects that this code has been removed. In addition, the Board (PERB), considered the report of the HQMC Performance Evaluation Review Board 8 December 2000, a copy of which is attached. 103 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) HE CASE OF STAFF SMC .

  • 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 | CY2001 | 07355-00

    Original file (07355-00.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 26 October 2000, a copy of which is attached. Given the circumstances in the challenged fitness report, and especially in view of the detailed "counseling" by both the...

  • 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 | 08255-01

    Original file (08255-01.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. They were likewise unable to find that you were not given a chance to submit an “MRO [Marine reported on] worksheet” or that you were not given a chance to discuss your billet description with the reporting senior. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation 000425 to 000717 The petitioner...

  • 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 | CY2001 | 07650-00

    Original file (07650-00.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. Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTEIRS UNITED STATES :3280 RUSSELL ROA QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22 MA!PlNE CORP S D 134-!i 103 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB 6 IIOV ?flflo MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE...

  • 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...