DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
SMC
Docket No: 06690-01
12 October 2001
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. You requested removal of the
fitness reports for 5 September 1990 to 31 July 1991 and 1 August to 8 December 1991.
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed that the contested
fitness report for 1 August to 8 December 1991 be modified by removing all but the first
sentence of the reporting senior’s comments in section C.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 12 October 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 16 August 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 warranting further correction. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred
with the comments contained in the report of the PERB.
application for relief beyond that effected by CMC has been denied. The names and votes of
the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
In view of the above, your
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.
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
Enclosure
I
a
‘u
PARTMENT OF THE NAV
Y
HEADOUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA
22134.6103
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
1 6 AU6
2001
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:
Ref:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD
ADVISORY
SERGEANT
(a)
(b)
SSg
MC0
P1610.7C
DD Form 149 of 5 Jun 01
w/Ch l-5
(PERB)
E OF STAFF
USMCR
._
Per
1.
MC0
with three me
Sergean
Staff
Removal of the following fitness reports was requested:
1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
nt, met on 15 August 2001 to consider
petition contained in reference (a).
a.
b.
Report A
- 900905 to 910731 (AR)
Report B
- 910801 to 9'11208 (EN)
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing
the submission of both reports.
The petitioner contends that comments in Report A regarding
and integrity are untrue
2.
his physical condition, temperament,,
and unjust and that Report B is merely a duplication of that
evaluation.
copy of his statement to the President of the CYOO Promotion
Board and several advocacy statements, also furnished to that
Board on his behalf.
To support his appeal,
the petitioner furnishes a
3.
In its proceedings,
the PERB concluded that:
a.
Report A is both administratively correct and
procedurally complete as written and filed.
offered as relevant:
The following is
(1) The issues which the petitioner surfaces in
reference (a) should have been raised when he acknowledged the
adverse nature of the report some ten years ago.
this time lacks not only timeliness, but a certain amount of
credibility as well.
To do so at
Subj
:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON
SERGEA
BCNR APPLICATION IN
SMCR
CASE OF STAFF
he observations made by Lieutenant
nothing has been presented to
leged unauthorized absence (UA).
Even if that we
it appears the UA was during the
period covered by Report B and has no impact on the evaluation
contained in Report A.
._
_'
(3) Lieutenant
Co10
is not considered credible s
period covered by Report A.
Section C of Report B,
adverse evaluation contained in R
displeasure with Captai
he did not challenge t
have been,
Report A.
s explanation of the facts
s not present during the
However, based on the comments in
we do know the petitioner warrants the
Whatever Captain
change of status may
bility or validity of
(4) The remainder of the advocacy statements furnished
with reference (a) positively address the petitioner's
performance subsequent to the period covered by Report A.
Consequently, they have no bearing on the finite period covered.
b.
Report B, although "not observed", was rendered
"adverse" by virtue of several comments in Section C.
does not believe that complete removal of the report is
necessary and has directed elimination of everything beginning
. ” Section C of Report B will read as
with: "Justifiably
follows: "This is a not observed report for the following
reasons
the IR
nded his SMCR status by transferring to
. .
The Board
The Board's opinion,
4.
vote, is that Report A and the modified version of Report B
s official
should remain a part of Staff Serg
military record.
subparagraph 2b is considered sufficient.
The limited corrective action identified in
based on deliberation and secret ballot
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY
SERGEANT
IN THE CASE OF STAFF
USMCR
5.
The case is forwarded for final action.
erformance
,_
-'
Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
3
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05307-01
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 | CY2002 | 08909-02
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested fitness report to delete references to matters that occurred before the reporting period. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 8 October 2002, a copy of which is attached. Chairperson, Performance Evaluation Review Board Personnel Management Division Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department By direction of the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05598-01
Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps Deputy Director Personnel Management Division Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADGUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROAD GUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-510 3 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 CMT 28 Aug 01 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION; CASE OF MAJO SMCR in the case of .Ol Aug...
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 | CY1999 | 03672-98
He stated that since his fitness reports as a lieutenant and captain were sufficiently strong to allow him to have been promoted to major, and since his major reports are “far more competitive, ”the probability of promotion to lieutenant colonel “would be high.” Regarding his fitness report for 15 November 1985 to 28 February 1986, he stated that although it is an “annual” report, it covers only three months, during which the actual observation was only four to six calendar days. In their...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10846-02
Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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 HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS Y 3280 RUSSELL ROA D QUANTICO, VIRGINIA...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07843-00
The Board found that the reporting senior adequately justified the adverse marks assigned in the contested fitness report. Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosures DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV Y HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280RUSSELLROA QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22 D 134-5 103 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB 2000 \ 4 NOV MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06373-06
Specifically concerning the contested section K of the fitness report for 2 September 2000 to 5 March 2001, the Board found the mark in section K.3, the second lowest of eight possible marks, did not require marking section K.2 (“Evaluation”) “Do Not Concur [with reporting senior].” The Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion from MMOA-4 in concluding your selection by the FY 2007 Major Selection Board would have been definitely unlikely, even if the correction directed by...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04272-01
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 (PERB), dated 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. (BLT) executive officer (X0),...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01974-00
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has granted your requests to file a clear copy of the fitness report for 18 May 1981 to 4 February 1982, remove the reviewing officer comments from that report, and remove part of a sentence from the report for 30 March to 9 May 1983. fitness reports was requested: Removal of the a. b. Board is directing the complete removal of the Reviewing Officer comments furnished by Colonel Julian since reference contained no provision to allow...