Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06850-01
Original file (06850-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 

NAVY 

ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

BJG
Docket No: 6850-01
27 February 2002

Dear Staff 

Sergea

This is in reference to 
provisions of title-10 of the United States Code, section 1552.

yqur application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 27 February 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 24 August 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. Accordingly, 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 action cannot be
taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board.
In this regard,
important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.

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.

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Enclosure

EPARTMENT OF THE NAV

Y

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280 RUSSELL ROAD

GUANTICO. VIRGINIA 221 34-51 03

IN REPLY REFER TO:

0

161
MMER/PERB
2 
2001

I AU6  

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF STAFF
SERGEANT,

USMC

Ref:

(a) 
(b) 

SSgt
MC0 

P1610.7E 

D Form 149 of 13 Jun 01
w/Ch 1

Per 

MC0 

1610.11C,

the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
1.
with three members present, met on 22 August 2001 to consider
Staff Sergeant,
Removal of the fitness report for the period 981001 to 991231
(AN) was requested.
directive governing submission of the report.

etition contained in reference (a).

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation

The petitioner contends there were extenuating medical

2.
circumstances surrounding his failure of the physical fitness
tests 
his own statement and several items of medical documentation.

To support his appeal,

the petitioner furnishes

(PFTs).

In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is

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

a.

When the petitioner acknowledged the adverse nature

J2), he clearly

of the report (evidence his signature in Item  
indicated he had no statement to make.
passively concurred in the accuracy of the recorded informa-
tion and had nothing to present in extenuation or mitigation.
The issues he now raises in reference (a) should have been
surfaced at the time the report was prepared.
over a year after the fact lacks both timeliness and credibility
the Board stresses that reference (b)
as well.
specifically states that the appeal system is not a substitute
for proper resolution of an adverse fitness report.

In so doing, he

To do so well

In addition,

b.

In reviewing the medical documents furnished with

the Board finds nothing to indicate he was not

reference (b),
physically qualified to take the PFT, or a
the windows of December 1998 and 1999.
at enclosure   (3) to reference (a) does not state the petitioner

during
letter

Ev

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF STAFF
SERGEANT

SMC

was incapable of performing the PFT during the periods he was
tested.

C .

There is a firm and recognized system in place for
The petitioner failed to obtain a

Marines who are ailing.
medical exemption and was apparently physically able to
perform the two failed  
documentation to the contrary.

There is simply no convincing

PFTs.

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.

Sergea

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

2



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04811-00

    Original file (04811-00.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. 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. Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORP 3280RUSSELL...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07832-02

    Original file (07832-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 October 2002. alle$ations 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 30 August 2002, a copy of which is attached Documentary material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01491-01

    Original file (01491-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 June 2001. !‘I FIB MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: ( ‘ Ref: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR AP SERGE N THE CASE OF USMCR (a) (b) Sergea MC0 P1610.7D DD Form 149 of 13 w/Ch l-5 Ott 00 Per MC0 met on 21 February 2001 to consider 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05815-01

    Original file (05815-01.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. 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. The Board was unable to find you were not counseled during the pertinent reporting period, noting that the reporting...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02395-01

    Original file (02395-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 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. (b) is the performance evaluation met on 21 March 2001 to consider Reference Board, Removal 2.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08381-00

    Original file (08381-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The petitioner has offered absolutely no documentary that he missed only six hours of class Finally, while paragraph nine of enclosure (5) to evidence whatsoever to prove his allegations that his absences were due to medical reasons or that the report itself contains "false statements" (i.e., vice 60). The counseling entry meets the elements of a proper page 11 counseling in that it lists specific deficiencies and recommendations for corrective found, and states that Sergeant to make a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08768-01

    Original file (08768-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 January 2002. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 2 1 December 2001, a copy of which is attached. VIRGINIA 221 34-51 0 Y 3 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB 2 x m r DEC I MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE CORPS...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04711-01

    Original file (04711-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 7 June 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. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation etition contained in reference (a).

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07271-00

    Original file (07271-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 January 2001. 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 (PERB) dated 23 October 2000 with enclosures, a copy of which is attached. ‘\ ‘: 1 i/-f{_ “,’ ‘I From : D...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 04233-03

    Original file (04233-03.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 (PERB), dated 7 May 2003, a copy of which is attached. The Board was unable to find the contested fitness report was “B” used as a counseling document.