DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BJG
Docket No: 5808-01
23 August 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 22 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 20 July 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 probable material error or injustice. In this
connection, the Board substantially concurred with the report of the PERB.
Concerning the contested fitness report for 23 April to 18 August 1998, the Board was
unable to find that any matters not specifically mentioned were of such significance that they
should have been noted. They were likewise unable to find that you were not counseled. In
this regard, they generally do not grant relief on the basis of an alleged absence of
counseling, since counseling takes many forms, so the recipient may not recognize it as such
when it is provided. Finally, they were not persuaded that the reporting senior and
reviewing officer were biased against you, and placed you in a job where you could not be
rated against other staff noncommissioned officers, because you made a suggestion on
monitoring physical fitness tests.
Regarding the contested report for 30 September 1998 to 23 April 1999, the Board found that
it was within your command’s discretion to determine whether the incident cited in the report
warranted disciplinary action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
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.
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 NAV
Y
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO. VIRGINIA 221
34.5103
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
2 o JUL 2001
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:
Ref:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF STAFF
SERGEA
, USMC
(a)
(b)
(c)
SSgt.
MC0
MC0
P1610.7D
P1610.7E
DD Forms
w/Ch l-6
149(2) of 9 Apr 01
Per
MC0
1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
1.
with three members present,
Staff Sergeant
Removal of the following fitness reports was requested:
etition contained in reference (a).
met on 18 July 2001 to consider
a.
b.
Report A
- 980423 to 980818 (TR)
- Reference
(b) applies
Report B
- 980930 to 990426 (CH)
- Reference
(c) applies
The petitioner contends that Report A fails to include
2.
information concerning actual duties/accomplishments and infers
he should have received specific counseling on performance
He also points out there
related to the marks of "excellent."
was very little actual observation time by either the Reporting
Senior or Reviewing Officer.
petitioner continues to deny that he attempted to coerce the
To support his
office secretary into changing the report.
appeal, the petitioner furnishes his own detailed statements,
copies of the fitness reports, and letters in his behalf.
Concerning Report B, the
In its proceedings,
3.
administratively correct and procedurally complete as written
and filed.
The following is offered as relevant:
the PERB concluded that both reports are
a.
Regardless of the actual number of days of direct
the period covered by Report A encompasses 117
observation,
Hence, the Reporting Senior was required to complete an
days.
unless he justified to the contrary.
observed fitness report,
Not withstanding the petitioner's statement and the documenta-
tion furnished to support his arguments regarding Report A, the
Board discerns absolutely no error or injustice.
find nothing to show the petitioner did not receive some type of
Likewise, they
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF STAFF
SERGEAN
, USMC
performance counseling or that he somehow rated more than what
has been recorded.
b.
Simply stated,
there is nothing to refute the accuracy
Not only did the Reporting Senior identify the
of Report B.
petitioner's lack of integrity in attempting to have the fitness
report changed, both the Reviewing and the Adverse Sighting
Officers indicated they interviewed persons
the same conclusion.
statement is supportive, his "belief" that
He had no
occur as recorded is without substance or merit.
firsthand knowledge of the conversation between the petitioner
or the interviews conducted by those
and the office secretary,
officers actually involved in the performance evaluation cycle.
Again, the Board discerns neither an error nor an injustice.
While Master Sergeant
involved and came to
did not
The Board's opinion,
based on deliberation and secret ballot
4.
vote, is that the contested fitness reports should remain a part
of Staff Sergeant
fficial 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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08257-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 1 November 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. MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 04233-03
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 7 May 2003, a copy of which is attached. The Board was unable to find the contested fitness report was “B” used as a counseling document.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06693-01
At the outset, the board observes that Colone was the proper Reporting Senior for Report A (so acknow when the petitioner si that Lieutenant Colone Section B marks and Section C comments has absolutely no grounding in fact. Report B was completed a little over two months after the end of ased his observation PI he still had daily 2 Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR USMC the reporting period is not...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08255-01
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 | 04564-01
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 Board found that your more favorable recruiter fitness report for 1 March to 30 November 1997, from a different reporting senior, did not invalidate the contested report. rt for the period 980101 to 980406 (CH) Reference (b) is the performance evaluation met on 31 May 2001 to consider Staff Removal The petitioner...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03057-01
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed that the contested fitness report be amended by changing the beginning date from 27 February to 13 April 1996. They found the reviewing officer had no duty to direct the reporting senior to revise or remove those of his comments which rendered the report adverse, but he correctly ensured that you were afforded your rights regarding adverse fitness reports. This includes, but is certainly not limited to, Had there been...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08165-00
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has amended the contested report for 19 September 1997 to 28 February 1998 by removing the reviewing officer’s comments. 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. The Board agrees with the petitioner concerning the Reviewing Officer's comments included with Report B. not, however, find that complete removal...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07545-01
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 | CY2002 | 08637-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive Your allegations of error and session, considered your application on 17 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 13 December 2001, a copy of which is attached. Sincerely, W....
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09235-02
It is noted that the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Section, Personnel Management Support Branch, Personnel Management Division (MMSB-30) has placed a memorandum in your record amending the contested fitness report to show you should have been ranked among five officers, rather than six; and that you should be ranked fifth of five. Board. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation The petitioner contends that an administrative error 2 .