DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370.510
0
SMC
Docket No: 0783740
23 February 2001
SMCR
-s
Dear 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 23 February 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
2000, a copy of which is attached.
(PERB), dated 9 November
PERB. The
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
In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained
injustice.
in the report of the
16 September 1999 from the equal opportunity advisor, but this statement did not persuade
them that the contested fitness report was not a fair and accurate appraisal. Specifically, it
did not persuade them that the contested fitness report was in reprisal for your having sought
assistance from the equal opportunity advisor. 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.
Ibard duly considered the statement dated
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
3280RUsstzLLRO~D
QUANTICO,
VlRGlNlA 22
134-5
103
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
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
USMCR --
-
(a) Sergeant
(b)
MC0
P1610.7E
DD Form 149 of 18 Jan 00
Encl:
(1) Completed Fitness Report 981005 to 990205 (TR)
MC0
Per
161O.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
1.
with three members present, met on 29 March 2000 to consider
Sergeant
of the fitness report for the period 981005 to 990205 (TR) was
requested.
governing submission of the report.
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive
etition contained in reference (a).
Removal
The petitioner contends that neither the Reporting Senior nor
2.
the Reviewing Officer had sufficient observation of her and her
performance to render a meaningful evaluation. She also
indicates the report fails to include personal accomplishments,
that she never received a copy of the signed report, that she was
never counseled on the assigned marks, and that the report
contains adverse and unsupported comments.
appeal, the petitioner furnishes her own statement, copies of two
versions of the.report, and copies of several electronic mail
transmissions.
To support her
3.
In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that:
a.
As contended the report contains adverse comments which
Owing to the relative
the petitioner should have acknowledged.
recency of the report at the time reference (a) was first con-
sidered by the PERB (13 months), the Board found referral to be
an appropriate remedy, and directed that such be accomplished.
,I
b.
All action attendant to rebuttal and adjudication of
the report has been completed and both the Reviewing Officer
t Colonel
have alle
and Adverse Sighting Officer (Mr.
y question or doubt that the report
represents anything other than a fair, accurate, and objective
assessment of the petitioner's demonstrated performance during
the stated period.
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY
SERGEANT'
NION ON BCNR APP
IN THE CASE OF
MCR
The Board's opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
4.
vote, is that the contested fitness report, as reflected in the
ficial
enclosure, should remain a part of Sergeant
military record.
5.
The case is forwarded for final action.
--.
Perfo'rmance,
Chairperson,
Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
2
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 | CY2002 | 07271-00
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 | 07130-01
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 | 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 | CY2001 | 07121-01
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. In her statement appended to reference (a), the petitioner has merely furnished a second rebuttal to this already properly and completely adjudicated evaluation. In his Section C comments, the Reporting Senior '98 exercise and stated her immediate senior qualified his statements regarding the petitioner's...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02972-01
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested fitness report for 9 June to 19 August 1997 by directing that the following be removed from the reviewing officer’s comments: “After a longer baseline of observation and much closer scrutiny, I am convinced that my previous RevO [reviewing officer] comments -- based on thirty days of personal observation and vastly conflicting reports from MRO [Marine reported on]’s enlisted and officer leadership -- were...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05808-01
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. 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. was very little actual observation time by either the Reporting Senior or Reviewing Officer.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07832-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 October 2002. alle$ations 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 30 August 2002, a copy of which is attached Documentary material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00559-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 22 January 2001 with enclosure, a copy of which is attached. When the petitioner acknowledged the adverse nature of the report on 20 June 1999 (evidence her signature in Section Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF GUNNERY SERGEANT SMC ment of rebuttal , she had still not furnished her...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02641-00
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.