DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
X
2 NAVY ANNE
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
S
BJG
Docket No: 6988-01
11 January 2002
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 10 January 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 (PERB), dated 4 September 2001, a copy of which is attached.
Documentary material considered by the Board
your
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.
In this
The Board was unable to find the reporting senior did not fulfill his responsibilities.
regard, they noted the reviewing officer reviewing officer explains that the contested fitness
report was delayed at his own direction until after a major exercise, to ensure the report
would receive the reporting senior? full attention.
find the
reviewing officer failed in his responsibility to ensure the reporting senior complied with the
applicable fitness report order.
counseled you, notwithstanding your belief that the meeting you admit he set up for you and
the reporting senior was not a form of counseling.
reporting senior used your fitness
reporbas a lever to influence you, even if you are correct
that he stated to you, at a public function in the presence of his peers, that you were working
for him and that he wrote your fitness report.
at issue, to your nonpunitive letter of reprimand.
They could not find the reviewing officer erred by stating he
Finally, they found no reference, in the report
They were likewise unable to
They were unable to
find that the
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 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
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 221 34-51 0
Y
3
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORD
S
Subj:
Ref:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPI
MASTER SERGE
SMC
(a)
(b)
MSgt
MC0
P1610.7E
Form 149 of 23 May 0 1
w/Ch 1
MC0
Per
1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
met on 29 August 2001 to consider
ition contained in reference (a).
991018 to 000229
1.
with three members present,
Master Serg
Removal of the fitness report for the period
(TR) was requested.
directive governing submission of the report.
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation
The petitioner contends the Reviewing Officer failed to
2.
mentor and communicate with the Reporting Senior to ensure
He also denies any type of
compliance with reference (b).
counseling and indicates the Reporting Senior never provided
guidance,
in running the current Operations Section.
objects to the Reviewing Officer's inclusion of additional
adverse information and states he was not privy to either sight
or acknowledge that officer's comments.
the petitioner furnishes his own statement.
nor did he furnish performance standards or direction
The petitioner
To support his appeal,
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.
Not withstanding the petitioner's detailed statement
the Board finds nothing substantive
included with reference (a),
to prove the petitioner did not receive some type of performance
or that he was not provided
feedback during the stated period,
any counsel or guidance.
that counseling can and does take many styles and forms, some of
Certainly
which may not be readily apparent to the recipient.
the inherent relationship between the petitioner (G-Z Current
Operations Chief) and the Reporting Senior
Operations Officer) would have ensured
dialog during this four-month reporting period.
(G-2 Current
some type of on-going
the Board stresses
In this regard,
Additionally,
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINIO
MASTER SERGEANT
C
are the comments by both the Reporting
and more significant,
Senior and Reviewing Officer concerning the petitioner's
disregard of the Reporting Senior
the presence of the Reporting Senior, the Reviewing Officer, and
the G-2 Chief.
's directions and counseling in
b.
Contrary to the petitioner's argument, the Board finds
Rather, he resolved the issues surfaced by the
albeit in favor of the Reporting Senior.
no new or additional adverse material in the Reviewing Officer's
comments.
petitioner,
Consequently,
opportunity to sight, sign, and respond
remarks.
correctly not afforded an
the petitioner was
S
The Board's opinion,
4.
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
of Master
based on deliberation and secret ballot
fficial military record.
Sergean
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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08255-01
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. They were likewise unable to find that you were not given a chance to submit an “MRO [Marine reported on] worksheet” or that you were not given a chance to discuss your billet description with the reporting senior. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation 000425 to 000717 The petitioner...
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 | 02974-01
Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. They were unable to find that block 18 was incorrectly marked to show the report was based on “daily” observation, noting observation need not be direct. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07010-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 5 September 2001, a copy of which is attached. The Board noted that the contested “CD” (change of duty) fitness report does not indicate you were relieved for cause. Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MASTER SERGEANT USMC factors adversely affected the petitioner's performance and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06056-02
The petitioner has provided nothing to support his claim of injustice or that he was denied an opportunity to appeal the NJP (i.e., NJP occurred and was correctly recorded via the performance evaluation system. However, Petitioner did not appeal his punishment and does not claim that he was denied the right to do so. it is the NJP However, offenses.- C .
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 06069-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 August 2003. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. While you are correct that your record reflects no counseling entry about the incident cited in the contested fitness report, the Board was unable to were not counseled about the incident, noting that the third sighting...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06836-02
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 | 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 | 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 | CY2002 | 05815-01
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. 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...