Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07355-00
Original file (07355-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

SMC
Docket No: 
5 April 2001

07355-00

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 5 April 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 
26 October 2000, a copy of which is attached.

(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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained
in the report of the PERB.
names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

In view of the above, your application has been denied. The

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

3280  RUSSELL ROAD
 

QUANTICO,  VIRGINIA 22

134-5  103

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISOR
SERGEAN

N ON BCNR APPL

IN THE CASE OF STAFF

USMC

(a) SS
(b) 

MC0 

P1610.7E 

D Form 149 of   12 Jan 00

w/Ch 1

Per 

1.
MC0 
with three me
Staff 
Sergea
Removal of t
(DC) was requested.
directive governing submission of the report.

1610.11C,  the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
, met on 26 October 2000 to consider
petition contained in reference (a).
ort for the period 981215 to 991114

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation

The petitioner believes the fitness report was used as a

2.
counseling tool as opposed to an evaluation of performance.
He also alleges that he was never counseled on substandard
performance and that the Third Officer Sighting was not as per
reference (b).
his own statement,
fitness report  

the petitioner furnishes
copy of his Request Mast, a copy of his prior

and several advocacy letters.

To support his appeal,

(980826-981111),

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

While the petitioner disclaims any counseling, the Board

notez'that  in his Request Mast application (6 December  
petitioner cites two specific instances   during the 
period  when he was counseled (27 September and 28 October 1999).
Given the circumstances in the challenged fitness report, and
especially in view of the detailed  
"counseling" by both the Reviewing
Third Sighting Officer (Lieutenant
concludes that the petitioner's argument
without merit.

in this regard is

reportihg

on the matter of

commentar

and the
ard

1999), the

b.

The advocacy statements included with reference (a) are

sympathetic and supportive of the petitioner; however, they do
not invalidate the observations of the reporting officials
involved in the performance evaluation cycle.

Simply stated, it

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADV
SER

HE CASE OF STAFF
USM C

is their perspectives versus those officially charged with the
responsibility to evaluate and document performance.

C .

The petitioner provides no elaboration as to why he
"... third officer sighting was not completed as required

believes 
by regulation."
Battalion Executive Officer reviewed the report, then the
Battalion Commander was the appropriate Third Sighting Officer.
We find nothing to prove to the contrary.

stands.to reason that since the

It certainly 

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.

.

ante

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 | CY2002 | 00200-01

    Original file (00200-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 April 2001. 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. , DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROA D QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22 134-5 103 REFER TO: IN...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07130-01

    Original file (07130-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB),...

  • 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 | 08366-02

    Original file (08366-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modification of your fitness report for 18 April to 1 September 1998 by removing the last two sentences from the reviewing officer ’s comments. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 November 2002. Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISOR SERGEAN HE CASE OF STAFF USMC despite the difficulties...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02974-01

    Original file (02974-01.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. They were unable to find that block 18 was incorrectly marked to show the report was based on “daily” observation, noting observation need not be direct. 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03751-00

    Original file (03751-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed that the memorandum for the record be filed in your official record stating name, grade and title of the third sighting officer. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280RUSSELLROA D QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-510 3 TO: IN REPLY REFER 1610 MMER/PERB 2 4 MAY 2008 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Sub-i: Ref: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07843-00

    Original file (07843-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2002 | 08032-01

    Original file (08032-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 11 January 2002, a copy of which is attached. The petitioner has not substantiated his allegations disclaiming performance counseling and undue influence on the Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION MASTER SERGEANT C part of Gunnery Sergeants insigh to gain first-hand briefing offic Senior (Captai (Lieutenant Co e-mail...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08332-01

    Original file (08332-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 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 26 November 2001, a copy of which is attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction...

  • 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.