Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00200-01
Original file (00200-01.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

00220-01

“6SMC

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 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.
the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board 
9 January 2001, a copy of which is attached.

In addition, the Board considered the report of

(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. The Board noted the third sighting officer stated he chose not to
charge you with dereliction of duty “not because [you] did not violate the UCMJ [Uniform
Code of Military Justice], but out of a sense of fairness ” as he felt your relief for cause
“adequately addressed this issue.  
The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

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

”

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 ROA

D

QUANTICO,  VIRGINIA   22 134-5 103

REFER TO:

IN REPLY 
1610
MMER/PERB
~ 

 JAN 

'wol

9

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

MARINE 
ADVISOR
SERGEAN

COR& PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)

THE CASE OF STAFF

USMC

(b) 

MC0 

P1610.7E 

DD Form 149 of 5 

w/Ch 1

Ott 00

1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

present, met on 27 December 2000 to consider

Per 

MC0 

1.
with three members
Sergean
Staff 
Removal of th
(TR) was requested.
directive governing submission of the report.

tition contained in reference (a).
rt for the period 990611 to 991214

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation

The petitioner contends that the adverse mark in Section D

2.
(Mission Accomplishment) is not a true reflection of his
performance; that it was assigned as the result of one incident
for which he believes he was not responsible.
He also alleges
the adverse mark in Section E (Initiative) is not accurate; that
he was never made aware that an M249 was missing from the armory.
The petitioner takes exception with the adverse marks in Section
G (Intellect and Wisdom) and states he never used poor judgment.
Finally, he believes he rated a higher mark in Item  
(Professional Military Education) and that the comments contained
in Section I fail to accurately portray his performance. To
support his appeal,
copies of Division Orders,
January 1999.

the petitioner furnishes his own statement,

and a copy of a FSMAO Report of 29

Gl

In its proceedings,

3.
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
written and filed.
The following is offered as relevant:

the PERB concluded that the report'is

a.

Not withstanding the documentation furnished with

reference (a), the petitioner offers no substantive evidence
to refute the accuracy of the challenged fitness report.
The
arguments tendered are essentially the same as those surfaced
in his initial rebuttal statement and which were adjudicated by
both the Reviewing Officer and Third Sighting Officer.

b.

What is of paramount importance is that not only did the
Reporting Senior indicate the petitioner had been counseled, but

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD
ADVISORY
SERGEANT

HE CASE OF STAFF
MC

 

(PERB)

that the Third Sighting Officer (the Battalion Commander) also
stated that he personally counseled the petitioner.
Sighting Officer also made it abundantly clear that the
petitioner was not relieved as the result of a single incident,
but that the particular incident was  
serious...".

"...the last and most

The Third

C .
appeal.
was mentioned in that performance evaluation.

The inclusion of the FSMAO Report has no bearing on this
The report was during the previous reporting period and

The Board's opinion,

4.
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
of Staff 

based on deliberation and secret ballot

ficial military record.

Sergean

5.

The case is forwarded for final action.

formance

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 | 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 | CY2001 | 02721-01

    Original file (02721-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 Board found the incident cited, described by your service record page 11 counseling entry, the reporting senior and the third sighting officer as “minor,” was nevertheless important enough to warrant mention in the contested fitness report. Reference fitness report for the period 971101...

  • 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 | 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 | 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 | CY2001 | 07355-00

    Original file (07355-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Given the circumstances in the challenged fitness report, and especially in view of the detailed "counseling" by both the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07010-01

    Original file (07010-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The Board noted that the contested “CD” (change of duty) fitness report does not indicate you were relieved for cause. Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MASTER SERGEANT USMC factors adversely affected the petitioner's performance and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04197-02

    Original file (04197-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2001 | 04534-01

    Original file (04534-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official In this records. Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosure : DEPART h&ADQUARTERS QUANT M ENT OF THE NAVY UN 3280 I CO ITED STATES RUSSELL ROAD I RG I N I A , V 22 134 CORP S MAR -5 I NE 103 : REPLY REFER TO I N 1610 MMER/PERB 2001 ; JON 1 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: Encl: 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...