Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07130-01
Original file (07130-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

BJG
Docket No: 7130-01
24 October 2001

SMC

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.

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. 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 5 September 2001, a copy of which is attached. They also considered
your letter dated 15 October 2001 with enclosure, and the retired Marine Corps first
sergeant’s letter dated 14 October 2001 with endorsements.

In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained

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 the report of the PERB. The supporting documentation, including the first sergeant ’s
letter, did not persuade them that the reporting senior was biased against you because of your
medical condition. In view of the above, your 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.

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

bEPARTMENT  OF THE NAVY
HEADGUARTERS  UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280 RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO. VIRGINIA 221 34-51 0

3

I,, REPLY REFER TO:

1610
MMER/PERB
2001

SE? 

5 

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) 

SSgt
MC0 

P1610.7E

DD Form 149 of 29 Jun 01

Per 

MC0 

1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

1.
with three members present, met on 5 September 2001 to consider
Staff Serge
Removal of the fitness report for the period 981001 to 990419
(CD) was requested.
directive governing submission of the report.

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation

petition contained in reference (a).

2 .
The petitioner contends that in completing the evaluation,
the Reporting Senior focused on her medical status rather than
her overall performance as a Marine.
petitioner furnishes statements from her current Commanding
She also
Officer,
provides a record of her medical history/procedure and copies of
other fitness reports.

and First Sergeant.

Officer-in-Charge,

To support her appeal, the

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

ile the advocacy letters fr
d First Sergeant Scott are
, none of those individuals were in the petitioner's
Consequently, their views and

reporting chain  at the time.
opinions are simply not germane.

b.

Based on the documents included with reference (a),

there is no doubt the petitioner experienced severe health
concerns during the reporting period.
the report reflected the Reporting Senior's bias regarding that
There is
medical situation is not borne out by the evidence.
absolutely nothing substantive to show the report is either
inaccurate or unfair,
than what has been recorded.

or that the petitioner somehow rated more
There is no indication by either

However, her belief that

Subj:

(PERB)
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF STAFF
SERGEANT

SMC

reporting official that the petitioner's performance was lacking
in any area.

C .

The Addendum Page furnished with  

Majo

at enclosure (1) to reference (a) meets the s
subparagraph 8007.3 of reference (b) regarding the acceptance of
the Board has directed the
supplemental comments.
insertion of the Addendum Page into the petitioner's official
record.

As a result,

The Board's opinion,

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

based on deliberation and secret ballot

official military record.

Sergean

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 | 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 | CY2002 | 06881-99

    Original file (06881-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    They were unable to find how, if at all, his report influenced your nonjudicial punishment or your removal from the 1998 staff sergeant selection list, nor could they find how he changed his opinions following the review of his report by the CO. We reviewed Sergeant documents concerning his Administrative Remarks page 11 entries dated 980804 and 981125, Offenses and Punishment page 12 entry dated 990311 and CMC letter 1450/3 MMPR-2 dated 2. In view of the above, it is recommended...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08165-00

    Original file (08165-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 02641-00

    Original file (02641-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The following comments concerning the page 11 entry dated 960112 4. are provided: a. The following comments concerning the page 11 entry dated 980326 5. are provided:' a. he was he statement would be filed acknowledged the counseling " to" make a statement in Again, it is noted that a copy of the rebuttal statement Sergean furthe b. Sergean does not provide documented evidence to support his claim that the page 11 entry is in error or unjust.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03130-01

    Original file (03130-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed amendment of the contested fitness report by changing the entry in item 17b (whether the Marine has been the subject of an adverse report from outside the reporting chain) from “Yes” to “No.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 August 2001. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03738-02

    Original file (03738-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    petitioner's assignment to the Military Appearance Program was correctly included on the fitness reports. As with Report A, the adversity of Report B was that he was assigned to the Military Appearance Program. rmance Evaluation Review Board Personnel Management Division Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps 2 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROA D QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-510 3 MEMORANDUM FOR...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05819-01

    Original file (05819-01.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. 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. Simply stated, this is a matter of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06690-01

    Original file (06690-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07271-00

    Original file (07271-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 January 2001. 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 (PERB) dated 23 October 2000 with enclosures, a copy of which is attached. ‘\ ‘: 1 i/-f{_ “,’ ‘I From : D...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04998-00

    Original file (04998-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280RUSSELL ROA D QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22 134-5 103 IN REPLY REFER TO: 161 0 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 USMC SERGEAN (a) (b) SSgt. VIRGINIA 22134-5103 NAVY IN REPLY REFER TO: 107 0 .MI MEMORANDUM FOR...