DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
ANNEX
NAVY
2
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
S
BJG
Docket No: 6836-02
3 September 2002
Dear Master 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 1.552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 29 August 2002.
Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures
applicable to the proceedings of this Board.
consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof,
naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board
considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review
Board
(PWB), dated 24 July 2002, a copy of which is attached.
Documentary material considered by the Board
you r
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. While they did recognize that the reporting senior (RS) supported
removing the contested fitness report, they noted the reviewing officer (RO) expressly
acknowledged that the “RS and RO fundamentally disagree. ” They particularly noted the
third sighting officer concluded that “the report stands as written. ” In view of the above,
your application has been denied.
furnished upon request.
The names and votes of the members of the panel will be
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
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
D
3280 RUSSELL ROA
GUANTICO. 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 May
02
Per
MC0
1610.11C,
1.
with three me
Master
Removal of the
(GC) was requested.
directive governing submission of the report.
the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
met on 22 July 2002 to consider
t,
petition contained in reference (a).
port for the period 991001 to 000104
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation
Sergean
The petitioner contends the Reviewing Officer's adverse
2.
remarks were based on personal issues vice a professional
evaluation.
several statements.
To support his appeal,
the petitioner furnishes
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.
Nowhere in reference (a) does the petitioner detail
precisely how or why he believes the Reviewing Officer's
assessment and comments were based on "personal issues", as
opposed to a professional evaluation.
apparent in reading the Reviewing Officer's comments, all of
which address his performance and mission accomplishment.
Such is certainly not
b.
While the letters included with reference (a) are
complimentary and supportive, the Board
the individuals who provided those testaments
petitioner's direct reporting chain.
presumed they were more aware
responsibilities to his Company Commander (Reviewing Officer).
Likewise,
of the petitioner's overall
observsa2hat
o+
- of
a
w in the
it cannot be
oh=
a
C .
The Board
fends nothing in reference (a) that was not
available to or otherwise known by the Reviewing Officer and
Adverse Sighting Officer when the report was initially prepared,
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY
MASTER S
C
rebutted,
this end,
the existence of either an error or an injustice.
adjudicated,
the Board finds the petitioner has failed to establish
and submitted to this Headquarters. To
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
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 | 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 | 00836-02
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 | CY2002 | 08696-02
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 27 September 2002, a copy of which is attached. and it is 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. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation The petitioner states the challenged report is "undeserved", 2. yet provides no statement...
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 | 03751-00
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 | 08909-02
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested fitness report to delete references to matters that occurred before the reporting period. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 8 October 2002, a copy of which is attached. Chairperson, Performance Evaluation Review Board Personnel Management Division Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department By direction of the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08032-01
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 | CY2002 | 07967-02
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure applicable naval record be corrected by removing his fitness report for 1 October 2000 to 3 1 July 2001, a copy of which is at Tab A to enclosure (1). fifth highest, in F.3 ( “setting the ” the reviewing officer ” the g. Petitioner provided a supporting letter dated 30 April 2002 (Tab E to enclosure (1)) from the RS who submitted the contested transfer fitness...
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...