DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2
NAVY
ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
MC
BJG
Docket No: 5815-01
22 March 2002
--_ll*-r
.-‘.
-_
Dear Staff Ser
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 2 1 March 2002.
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 (PERB), dated 23 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
injustice. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained
in the report of the
PERB.
The Board was unable to find you were not counseled during the pertinent reporting period,
noting that the reporting senior stated, in section G.3 of the contested fitness report, that he
had counseled you verbally just before the incident during the deployment of 17 January to
24 February 1999. They noted that counseling need not be in writing. They found section
A.5.a of the contested report was correctly marked to reflect the report was adverse, because
of the adverse mark of “A” in section G.3, “judgment.” They found no inconsistency
between this mark and the many other more favorable aspects of the report. They observed
that the requirement for reporting senior comment in section I was not established until
2 1 October 1999, after the reporting period concerned. They further observed that the
reporting senior was obligated to document performance deficiencies that occurred during the
reporting period, regardless of the length of time since you had received pertinent
counseling. As the third sighting officer merely signed the fitness report in question without
comment, the Board found that additional referral to you, so you could
written, was not warranted. Finally, they found that neither your subsequent better fitness
reports, nor your having had less than a year as a staff sergeant, served to invalidate the
report at issue.
see what he had
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
ac_tioGtc_annot 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
JEPARTMENT 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
2 3
Zoo\
j&
MEMORANDUM FOR
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD
NAVAL RECORDS
FOR CORRECTION OF
Subj:
Ref:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVIS
SERGE
THE CASE
USMC
OF STAFF
(a)
(b)
SSgt
MC0
P1610.7E
D Form 149 of 24 Apr 01
Per
MC0
1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
1.
met on 18 July 2001 to consider
with three members present,
etition contained in reference (a).
Staff
Removal of the fitness report for the period 981001 to 990227
(CH) was requested.
directive governing submission of the report.
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation
Sergea
The petitioner contends the report was used as a counseling
2.
tool and that the marks do not justify an "adverse" report. To
support his appeal,
a copy of the challenged fitness report,
from his Service Record Book (SRB).
the petitioner furnishes his own statement,
and a copy of a page 11
In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report
3.
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
The following is offered as relevant:
written and filed.
a.
Although the petitioner states he "made a mistake"
we note that he was given that
not appending a rebuttal,
opportunity on two separate occasions:
Senior; and once by the Reviewing Officer.
ment in his own behalf,
the accuracy of the evaluation and indicated he had no
extenuating or mitigating circumstances to present.
less, and not withstanding his own statement and the page 11
entry, the Board finds absolutely nothing to question the
accuracy or fairness of the report.
the petitioner passively concurred in
once by the Reporting
is
by
By omitting a state-
Neverthe-
b .
The Board acknowledges the date of the official
counseling entry is after the ending date of the report.
However, such entries are often late and should not be used to
invalidate the formal recording of deficient performance.
is especially germane in the petitioner's case since he was
This
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE
SERGEA
USMC
OF STAFF
previously counseled (verbally) concerning his unprofessional
behavior.
petitioner also chose to forego a statement in response to the
page 11 counseling entry.
As a matter of interest, the Board notes the
C .
Finally, and contrary to the petitioner's belief, the
Board does not find that the report has been used as a
counseling tool.
reflect demonstrated performance/characteristics.
As previously stated, the report appears to
The Board's opinion,
4.
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
of Staff Sergeant
based on deliberation and secret ballot
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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02641-00
The following comments concerning the page 11 entry dated 960112 4. are provided: a. The following comments concerning the page 11 entry dated 980326 5. are provided:' a. he was he statement would be filed acknowledged the counseling " to" make a statement in Again, it is noted that a copy of the rebuttal statement Sergean furthe b. Sergean does not provide documented evidence to support his claim that the page 11 entry is in error or unjust.
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 | 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 | 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 | 04564-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 4 June 2001, a copy of which is attached. The Board found that your more favorable recruiter fitness report for 1 March to 30 November 1997, from a different reporting senior, did not invalidate the contested report. rt for the period 980101 to 980406 (CH) Reference (b) is the performance evaluation met on 31 May 2001 to consider Staff Removal The petitioner...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07650-00
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 HEADQUARTEIRS UNITED STATES :3280 RUSSELL ROA QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22 MA!PlNE CORP S D 134-!i 103 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB 6 IIOV ?flflo MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE...
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 | 03138-01
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed amendment of the contested fitness report to reflect you were the subject of a meritorious mast. 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 18 April 2001, a copy of which is attached.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10143-02
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board dated 15 November 2002, opy 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. VIRGINIA 22 D 194.2 102 Y 7 C/’ y 3 -L- .a IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB NOV 1 5 2002 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10142-02
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 8 November 2002, 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. letters do not overshadow or otherwise negate the evaluations of Again, those Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD...