DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BJG
Docket No: 7293-01
17 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.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 17 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 14 September 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
,iPARTMENT OF THE NAV Y
HEADOUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 221 34-51 03
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
14
LA;
SIP
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORD
S
Subj:
Ref:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD
ADVISORY 0
LIEUTENANT
MC
(PERB)
CASE OF FIRST
1s
(a)
(b) MC
(c)
MC0
DD Form 149 of 15 Jun 01
l-2
6100.10B (Weight Control and Military Appearance)
Per
MC0
1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
1.
with three mem
First Lieutena
Removal of the fitness report for the period 990801 to 000418
(TR) was requested.
directive governing submission of the report.
met on 12 September 2001 to consider
'etition contained in reference (a).
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation
The petitioner contends the report is unjust regarding the
2.
adversity associated with weight control issues.
appeal, the petitioner furnishes his own detailed statement, a
copy of the challenged fitness report,
his own weight control,
and subsequent fitness reports.
documentation concerning
To support his
In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is
3.
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
The following is offered as relevant:
written and filed.
a.
Simply stated,
the petitioner has furnished absolutely
nothing in the way of documentary evidence to support his claim.
When he responded to the adverse nature of the report approxi-
mately a year ago,
details in reference (a).
he surfaced almost the exact arguments he now
We specifically note that Major
the Reviewing Officer,
thoroughly adjudicated and
resolved all of the petitioner's concerns, albeit in favor of
the accuracy of the Reporting Senior's evaluation.
b.
Succinctly stated, the petitioner's height/weight
situation was accomplished per the policy stipulated in
references (b) and (c).
weight control during the period covered by the challenged
fitness report and that matter was correctly recorded.
the very documentation included with reference (a) counters the
The petitioner had been assigned to
In fact,
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY 0
LIEUTEN
CNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF FIRST
SMC
petitioner's argument that he was not aware of the consequence
of his problems until January 2000.
The papers show he was
weighed and measured, seen by an ACHCP,
the Weight Control Program.
August 1999.
That all took place between 2-10
and officially placed on
C .
The new policy forthcoming in
MC0
P6100.3K (Marine-Corps
Physical Fitness Test and Body Composition Program), and which
will replace reference (c),
report was prepared.
petitioner's situation.
Consequently, it has no bearing on the
was not in place when the challenged
d.
The Board emphasizes that to justify deletion or
amendment to a fitness report,
injustice should be produced.
in this case.
evidence of probable error or
Such is simply not the situation
The Board's opinion,
4.
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
of First Lieutena
based on deliberation and secret ballot
<.I official military record.
5.
The case is forwarded for final action.
Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps
Deputy Director
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05613-00
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 14 August 2000, and a memorandum for the record dated 11 July 2001, copies of which are attached. nd Lieutenant Colon challenged report centers around the accuracy...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01250-99
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN COLONEL (2) Standard Addendum Page 1 of 9 (Frame Ell, 04 Fiche). attachments to fitness reports, other reference (b). 4. vote, remain a part of Colonel limited corrective actions through is that the contested fitness report, as modified, should 3a(7) are considered sufficient.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04283-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 June 2001. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 22 May 2001, a copy of which is attached. MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD ADVISORY LIEUTENAN N THE CASE OF...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 02618-98
The Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB in finding that your contested adverse fitness report should not be removed. Regardless, the report under Sub j : MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY LIEUTENAN SE OF FIRST USMC consideration is the official report of record and the one to which the petitioner responded. (7) ~ajor- advocacy letter of 23 November 1998 claims he was not aware that the petitioner 'was involved...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03463-01
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 27 April 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08696-02
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 27 September 2002, a copy of which is attached. and it is 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. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation The petitioner states the challenged report is "undeserved", 2. yet provides no statement...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04541-01
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 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 | 04885-01
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 15 June 2001, a copy of which is attached. The petitioner states he had no adverse counseling and naturally assumed his performance was acceptable.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00224-01
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. ::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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01105-99
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. the PERB concluded that the report is a. Notwithstand' the statements of both the petitioner and there is no showing that the petitioner tunity to append an official rebuttal to When the petitioner acknowledged the adverse First Lieutenan was not afforde the fitness report. ...