Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04866-01
Original file (04866-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370.5100

SMC
Docket No: 04866-01
13 December 2001

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 13 December 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 15 June 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 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
  22  134-5 103

3280  RUSSELL ROAD

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
15 

JIJN 

2Mr

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY
SERGEANT

THE CASE OF STAFF
USMC

D Form 149 of 7 Mar 01
Ch  l- 2

Per 

MC0 

1.
with three members present,
Sergeant
the fitn
requested.
governing submission of the report.

1610.11C,  the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

met on 13 June 2001 to consider Staff

tition contained in reference (a).
for the period 961116 to 970221 (TD) was

Removal of

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive

The petitioner contends the report was written as an

yet he was never afforded an opportunity to

2.
"adverse"
review and respond.

evaluation,

In its proceedings,

3.
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
written and filed.
The following is offered as relevant:
.

the PERB concluded that the report is

a.

While the petitioner has not stated precisely what he
believes is "adverse",
the Board has carefully reviewed the
entire document and finds absolutely nothing that would have
required his signature in Item 24 and the opportunity to append a
statement of rebuttal.
incorrect.

the petitioner is

Simply stated,

b.

The petitioner has not furnished any documentation to

support his claim that he was unjustly evaluated because of
ongoing medical care for an allergic reaction.
Even if it is
proven that he was under a physicians care, that certainly does
not corroborate his allegation that he was unfairly or unjustly
evaluated.

The Board's opinion,

4.
vote, is that the
of Staff Sergeant

based on deliberation and secret ballot
fitness report should remain a part
ficial military record.

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD
ADVISOR
SERGEAN

THE CASE OF STAFF
USMC

 

(PERB)

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

2



Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 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 | CY2002 | 07535-01

    Original file (07535-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removal of the contested fitness reports for 1 January to 16 June 1996 and 2 August to 31 December 1996. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04541-01

    Original file (04541-01.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 4 June 2001, a copy of which is attached. The petitioner states that on the day the report was written yet had never been placed 2. he was reported as being...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06850-01

    Original file (06850-01.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 24 August 2001, a copy of which is attached. VIRGINIA 221 34-51 03 IN REPLY REFER TO: 0 161 MMER/PERB 2 2001 I AU6 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08768-01

    Original file (08768-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 January 2002. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 2 1 December 2001, a copy of which is attached. VIRGINIA 221 34-51 0 Y 3 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB 2 x m r DEC I MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE CORPS...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06847-01

    Original file (06847-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 24 August 2001, a copy of which is attached. Finally, as stated by the PERB, the contested fitness report and your extension on active duty were separate administrative actions; and while the reporting senior did recommend approval of your extension, he did so without making any further comment. Reference (b) is the performance .L.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05117-01

    Original file (05117-01.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 (PERB), dated 2 1 June 2001, a copy of which is attached. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB, except they noted that in addition to the third...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05815-01

    Original file (05815-01.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 23 July 2001, a copy of which is attached. The Board was unable to find you were not counseled during the pertinent reporting period, noting that the reporting...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05588-01

    Original file (05588-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    consisted of your application, naval record considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Removal The petitioner contends that the report on file in his 2. official military record is different from the one he acknowledged and signed; that changes were made without his To support his appeal, the petitioner furnishes knowledge. counsel and discuss the s in possession of...