DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
BJG
Docket No:
6 December 2001
8255-01
SSG
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.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 5 December 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
=.
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.
(PERB), dated 2 November 2001, a copy of which is attached.
The Board was unable to find that you were not counseled about your perceived deficiencies,
or that you had inadequate time to correct them.
In this regard, they generally do not grant
relief on the basis of an alleged absence of counseling, since counseling takes many forms,
so the recipient may not recognize it as such when it is provided. They were likewise unable
to find that you were not given a chance to submit an “MRO [Marine reported on]
worksheet” or that you were not given a chance to discuss your billet description with the
reporting senior. They did not agree with your contention that the cited deficiencies were
not significant enough to affect your leadership potential or hinder mission. They were
unable to find you had no “failures during physically demanding events,
senior stated you did. Finally, they noted that the fitness report and Master Brief Sheet
reflect the same officer as reviewing officer.
” as the reporting
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.
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 NAV
Y
HEADQUARTERS UNITED
STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA
22134.51 03
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
2001
2 NOV
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:
Ref:
MARINE
ADVISORY OPINION
CORPS PERFORMA
NCE EVA L UAT I O N REVIEW
BOARD ( PERB )
ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF STAFF
USMC
(b)
MC0
P1610.7E
DD Form 149 of 2 Aug 01
w/Ch l-2
Per
MC0
1610.11C,
1.
with three members present,
Staff
Removal of the fitness report for the period
(CH) was requested.
directive governing submission of the report.
Sergean
the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
met on 31 October 2001 to consider
petition contained in reference (a).
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation
000425 to 000717
The petitioner contends
the deficiencies noted in the
2.
fitness report are incorrect since prior to signing the report
he was never officially counseled on his physical deficiencies.
He points out that he was never relieved of his duties; that he
passed the required Physical Fitness Test (PFT); and that he was
never given an opportunity to provide an MRO worksheet regarding
his performance.
In its proceedings,
3.
administratively correct and procedurally complete as written
and filed.
The following is offered as relevant:
the PERB concluded that the report is
a.
Other than offering his official statement of rebuttal,
the petitioner has furnished absolutely nothing to show the
report is somehow inaccurate or unjust.
nothing to substantiate any of his claims.
Likewise, there is
b.
While the Reviewing Officer made no comment because of
"insufficient" observation,
the Third Sighting Officer concurred in the overall evaluation
based on his own first-hand knowledge since assuming command in
June 1999.
the Board specifically notes that
C .
It is the position of the PERB that to justify the
deletion or amendment of a fitness report, evidence of probable
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISO
SERGEA
E CASE OF STAFF
USMC
error or injustice should be presented.
situation with this case.
Such is simply not the
The Board's opinion,
based on deliberation and secret ballot
is that
the contested fitness
reports should remain a part
4.
vote,
of Staff
Sergean
ficial military record.
5.
The case is forwarded for final action.
Chairperson, Performance
Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04197-02
Report A - 990827 to 991231 (AN). Report C - 000630 to 001231 (AN). Evaluation Review Board, request for May 2002 to consider Staff removal of his fitness report for the period 010101 to 010209 Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive (CH).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07245-01
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested fitness report for 17 April to 31 December 1999 by changing the beginning date to 18 June 1999, and adding “MRO [Marine reported on] attended and completed Joint Aviation Supply Maintenance Management Course. 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. require a mandatory...
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 | CY2001 | 02724-01
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. 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. petitioner furnishes a letter from Master Gunnery Sergeant a copy of the challenged fitness report, and his own...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 04790-03
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PEW), dated 2 June 2003, a copy of which is attached. (6), concerning section A, item 8b (physical fitness test (PFT)) of the fitness report form, says "Use code 'NMED' [not medically qualified] if the MRO warine reported on] is unable to take or pass the PFT because of a physical (medical) condition." The "NMED" entry in Item 8b of the fitness report, whi.ch is further...
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 | 00088-01
Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosure 1610 MMER/PERB 2 7 DEi ?OfJO 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 GUNNERY SERGEANT USMC (a) (b) GySg MC0 P1610.7E D...
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 | 06881-99
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 | 05819-01
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...