DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
BJG
Docket No: 8257-01
5 December 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 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
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 1 November 2001, a copy of which is attached.
a.ll material submitted in support thereof, your
PERB. Concerning the contested fitness report for 1 July to
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
8 September 1998, they did not agree with your statement that you were marked “EX”
(excellent) in all areas marked “OS” (outstanding) in the uncontested report for 1 January to
15 April 1998. In fact, the contested report marked you “OS” in eight of the areas marked
“OS” in the previous report: “regular duties,” “administrative duties,” “personal
appearance,
potential.
” Further, the contested report marked you “OS” in “additional duties,” in which
the prior report had marked you “NO” (not observed); and the contested report marked you
“EX” to “OS” in “general value to the service,” in which the prior report had marked you
“OS.
”
members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
In view of the above, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the
” “personal relations,
” and “growth
” “cooperation,
” “leadership,
” “loyalty,
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 221
34-51 0
3
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
L
1 NOV
2001
.
.
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
SERGEAN
USMC
(a)
(b)
(c)
SSg
MC0
MC0
P1610.7D
P1610.7E.
DD Form 149 of 7 Aug
w/Ch 1-5
01
Per
MC0
1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
1.
with three members present,
Staff
Removal of the following fitness reports was requested:
petition contained in reference (a).
met on 31 October 2001 to consider
Sergean
a.
b.
Report A
- 980701 to 980908 (TR)
- Reference (b) applies
Report B
- 981001 to 990930 (CD)
- Reference (c) applies
The petitioner believes there are several marks on both
2.
reports that are in contradiction with the respective narrative
comments.
received prior to going to the Staff Noncommissioned Officers
Academy (SNCOA) contained marks of "outstanding" where they are
now "excellent"
petitioner furnishes his own statement.
He also points out that the fitness reports he
To support his appeal, the
in Report A.
In its proceedings,
3.
administratively correct and procedurally complete as written
and filed.
The following is offered as relevant:
the PERB concluded that both reports are
a.
That the petitioner believes he should have received
Contrary to the petitioner's arguments, the Board
discerns absolutely no inconsistency in either Report A or
Report B.
higher marks is viewed as simply his opinion of his level of
performance versus that of the Reporting Seniors.
find nothing in reference (a) that documents precisely how or
why he should have received higher marks.
Board finds the petitioner has failed to meet the burden of
proof necessary to establish the existence of an error or an
injustice.
In this regard, the
Likewise, we
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF STAFF
SERGEANT
SMC
b.
While the petitioner's fitness report for the period
980101 to 980415 reflected higher Section B marks than what is
contained on Report A, the Board is haste to
Reporting Seniors were involved
Additionally,
each evaluation chr
during a finite period and one is simply not dependent on the
other.
ut that two
Eand
1stLt
4.
vote,
of Staff
The Board's opinion,
based on deliberation and secret ballot
is that the contested fitness reports should remain a part
Sergean
fficial 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 | 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04558-01
In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB. 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. MC0 P1610.7D DD Form 149 of 23 Jan 01 w/Ch 1-4 Per MC0 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, 1. with three members Sergean of the fitness report for the period 970101 to 971231 (AN) was requested.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08366-02
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 | 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 | CY2002 | 05607-01
in the report of the PERB in finding that the contested fitness report should stand. VIRGINIA 221 34-51 0 Y 3 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER,'PERB 2001 1 JUL 3 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 SERGEA SMC (a) Sergeant (b) MC0 P1610.7E s DD Form 149 of 1 May 01 Per MC0 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, 1. with three...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06220-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 November 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 3 August 2001, a copy of which is attached. Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00200-01
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
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 | 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 | 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).