Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05074-02
Original file (05074-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 

NAVY 

ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

BJG
Docket No: 5074-02
11 July 2002

SMC

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.

on 11 July 2002. Your allegations of error and injustice

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application  
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 (PERB), dated
3 June 2002, a copy of which is attached.

In addition, the Board considered the report of

They also considered your undated rebuttal letter.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found
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 reporting senior (RS) failed to clarify what he considered your duties to be. The
statement at enclosure (3) to your application, which indicates the RS was 
unit diary entries, does not establish that he misunderstood anything, or that he was 
accuse [you]. 
of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

” In view of the above, your application has been denied. The names and votes

They were unable to find you were erroneously evaluated, or that

“concerned” about
“quick to

 that 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 NAV

Y

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280 RUSSELL ROAD

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 221 34-51 03

IN 

REPLY  

REFER 

TO:

1610
MMER/PERB
%JN 
zoo?

8 o 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)

CATION IN THE CASE OF
SMC

C
(a) 
(b) 
MC0 

P1610.7E 

DD Form 149 of 7 Feb  02
w/Ch 1-2

Per 

1.
with three members present,

MC0 

1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

met on 29 May 2002 to consider CWO-2

etition contained in reference (a).

Removal of the

itness report for the period 000501 to 001006 (TR) was
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation
requested.
directive governing submission of the report.

The petitioner alleges he received very little support from
the Company Commanders, and the Company

r,L .
his Reporting Senior,
First Sergeants in carrying out his duties as the Personnel
Officer for the 2d Tank Battalion.
petitioner furnishes his own detailed statement, his two most
recent fitness reports,
former Reporting Senior,
2d Marine Division Administrative Assistance Team, and a copy of
the CGRI results matrix.

a letter and fitness report from a
a letter from the Officer-in-Charge,

To support his appeal, the

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

a.

At the outset,

the Board emphasizes that a majority of

the documentation included with reference (a) covers periods
prior to the challenged fitness report.
not germane to the issues at hand.

As such, it is simply

b.

From what has been recorded in the fitness report, it
can be concluded that the petitioner failed to establish firm
guidelines and to develop/institute procedures to ensure that
his goals and timelines were met.
companies did not support those administrative efforts and the
actions that were ultimately accomplished resulted in very
dismal and expected failures.

As succinctly stated by the

Consequently, the line

Subj:

MARINE  CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION

ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF CWO-2

, USMC

he could not trust the petitioner to take

Reviewing Officer,
care of the administrative needs of the Marines in 2d Tank
As a result, the petitioner was relieved.
Battalion.
action was well within the prerogative of the Battalion
Commander (Reviewing Officer) and nothing furnished with
reference (a) proves his decision was unwarranted.

That

4 .
vote
0

The Board's opinion,

based on deliberation and secret ballot

is that the contested fitness report should remain a part

official military record.

5 .

The case is forwarded for final action.

Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps
Deputy Director
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

2



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08080-02

    Original file (08080-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 12 September 2002, and two memoranda for the record, dated 16 October and 20 November 2002, copies of which are attached. letter from him to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and endorsed by both reporting officials. rmance Evaluation Review Board Personnel Management Division Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department By direction of the Commandant of the Marine...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00836-02

    Original file (00836-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Not withstanding the requirement to report the petitioner's unfortunate failing, of his overall performance and with a most positive "word picture" in Section I. nothing in this process was a quick the report appears to be a fair evaluation Contrary to the Both officers and failing to properly execute that bf enclosure (6) to reference (a), In paragraph seven I MEF clearly holds the petitioner responsible toward C . The petitioner is correct that paragraph 5005 of reference (a) requires the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07267-01

    Original file (07267-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The following is offered as relevant: a. Evidently both the petitioner and the Reporting Seniors the Marine reported on needs to be seen by a for both reports have misunderstood the criteria contained in references (b) and (c) concerning weight issues. To be placed on Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04656-00

    Original file (04656-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 5 July 2000, 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. Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVI cwo- THE CASE OF USMC b.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07830-02

    Original file (07830-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the 1 February to 6 September 2001 by deleting the next to last contested fitness report for paragraph from the reviewing officer’(R0) Addendum Page dated 8 January 2002. While the petitioner may not have received counseling on shortcomings and deficiencies, the Board is haste to observe Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISOR SERGEAN HE CASE OF SMC whether or not a member of the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04662-00

    Original file (04662-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 28 June 2000, a copy of which is attached. Removal ness report for the period 921101 to 930701 (CH) was Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive The petitioner contends that the marks in Items 13e (handling enlisted personnel), 1cl.. 2. trative duties), ---_____, \ ,,A r_-__---.__, the petitioner furnishes his own statement, a letter his...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06836-02

    Original file (06836-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. VIRGINIA 221 34-51 0 Y 3 1610 MMER/PERB JUL 2 4 20@ MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD NAVAL RECORDS FOR CORRECTION OF Sub; : MARINE CORPS ADVISORY OPINION ON MASTER SERGEAN PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE BOARD (PERB) OF SMC Ref: (a) (b) MSg MC0 P1610.7E DD Form 149 of w/Ch 1 14...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08254-01

    Original file (08254-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested fitness report for 1 September 1999 to 30 April 2000 by adding the revised reviewing officer comments dated 9 October deleting the nonconcurrence with the mark assigned in item H. 1 (evaluation of your responsibility as a reporting official). In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 5 November 2001, a copy of which is...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01886-00

    Original file (01886-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Removal of the following fitness reports was requested: a. b. The case is forwarded for fin Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps Deputy Director Personnel Management Division Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps 2 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROAD QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-510 3 IN REPLY REFER TO: 5354 MPE ---, .i MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE NAVAL RECORDS DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF Subj: REVIEW...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03738-02

    Original file (03738-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    petitioner's assignment to the Military Appearance Program was correctly included on the fitness reports. As with Report A, the adversity of Report B was that he was assigned to the Military Appearance Program. rmance Evaluation Review Board Personnel Management Division Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps 2 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROA D QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-510 3 MEMORANDUM FOR...