DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2
NAVY
ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BJG
Docket No: 5607-01
21 March 2002
SG
USMC
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.
for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
Your allegations of error and
revieM:ed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures
A three-member panel of the Board
session, considered your application on 2 1 March 2002.
injustice were
applicable to the proceedings of this
consisted
naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board
considered the report of the Headquarters
Review Boarcl (PERB), dated
of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board
h4arine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation
I3 July 2001, a copy of which is attached.
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 PERB in finding that the contested fitness report should stand. Since the
Board found no defect in your performance record, they had no basis to recommend granting
you remedial consideration for promotion or striking your failure of selection to staff
sergeant. In view of the above, your application has
the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
been denied. The names and votes of
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
-
.r...rtr
.
Enclosure
LPARTMENT OF THE NAV
HEADGUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO. 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 members present,
Sergean
of the fitness report for the period 980921 to 990331 (AN) was
requested.
directive governing submission of the report.
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation
petition contained in reference (a).
met on 11 July 2001 to consider
Removal
the Reviewing Officer's assessment nevertheless
The petitioner contends that although the report is not
2.
adverse,
reflects a biased evaluation of his performance.
bases his position on the Reviewing Officer's previous
the Battery Commander and on the fact that the Reviewing
Officer's observation is based on an "occasional" review (of his
performance) as opposed to the Reporting Senior's "daily"
review.
The petitioner
rc'le as
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.
In Section K4,
the Reviewing Officer specifically
identified the inflated nature of the report.
he discussed with the Reporting Senior; however, First
ecided to let his markings stand.
Lieutenan
Likewise,
his prerogative.
prerogative to nonconcur.
that action.
with his nonconcurrence,
nor any perception of bias.
In this regard,
it was the Reviewing Officer's
He did so and succinctly justified
there is no adversity associated
That was
This was a matter
b.
The Board observes that the Reviewing Officer's actions
and comments are in full compliance with the provisions of
sub-
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
USMC
SERGEAN
4014_2d(2)(a)
and
paragraphs
stated, Captai
this end the Board discerns absolutely no error or injustice.
4014.3b of reference (b).
precisely what is expected, and to
Simply
4.
vote,
of
Sergean
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.
Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00224-01
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. ::I 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 STAFF ,USMC (a) (b) (c) SSgt. appeal, the petitioner furnishes his own statement detailing his perception of the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06691-01
The Board found the reviewing officer permissibly referred to matters outside the reporting period in question, in order to reply to issues you raised in your rebuttal to the contested fitness report. 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. As an adverse fitness report, the petitioner was afforded his rightful opportunity to acknowledge and respond...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03130-01
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed amendment of the contested fitness report by changing the entry in item 17b (whether the Marine has been the subject of an adverse report from outside the reporting chain) from “Yes” to “No.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 August 2001. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08637-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive Your allegations of error and session, considered your application on 17 January 2002. 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 13 December 2001, a copy of which is attached. Sincerely, W....
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03057-01
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed that the contested fitness report be amended by changing the beginning date from 27 February to 13 April 1996. They found the reviewing officer had no duty to direct the reporting senior to revise or remove those of his comments which rendered the report adverse, but he correctly ensured that you were afforded your rights regarding adverse fitness reports. This includes, but is certainly not limited to, Had there been...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02721-01
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. 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 | 08218-01
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 29 October 2001, a copy of which is attached. While there may have been other iterations of the report, the one which is ultimately forwarded to and accepted by Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW...
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 | 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 | 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...