DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAV
Y
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2
NAVY
ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BJG
Docket No: 7832-02
7 October 2002
MC
Dear 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 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.
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 30 August 2002, 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.
reporting senior did not persuade them that the contested fitness report
view of the above, your application has been denied.
of the panel will be furnished upon request.
The supporting letter of 6 March 2002 from your current
The names and votes of the members
“was a mistake.” In
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.
important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
In this regard, 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
DEPARTMENT
OF T HE
NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROA
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22
D
134-5
103
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
AUG 3 0 2002
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISOR
SERGEAN
APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
MC
Ref:
(a) Serge
(b)
MC0
P1610.7E
DD 149 of 27 Jan
02
Per
MC0
1610.11C,
the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
1.
with three members present,
Sergean
of the fitness report for the period 990119 to 990331 (AN) was
requested.
directive governing submission of the report.
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation
etition contained in reference (a).
met on 8 August 2002 to consider
Removal
The petitioner contends that at the time he failed his
2.
physical fitness test (PFT) he was
that had been performed prior to arriving on Okinawa.
belief that he should not have been forced to take the PFT nor
To support his
be penalized with an adverse fitness report.
appeal, the petitioner furnishes excerpts from his medical
record.
still recovering from surgery
It is his
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.
When the petitioner acknowledged the adverse nature of
J2), he clearly
the report (evidence his signature in Section
indicated he had no statement to make.
passively concurred in the accuracy of the overall evaluation
without presenting any matters in extenuation or mitigation.
Had there been any question as to the petitioner's medical
it should have been surfaced at that time.
condition,
more than three years after the fact lacks timeliness.
In so doing, he
To do so
b.
The medical documentation included with reference (a)
corroborates the petitioner's surgery on 21 December 1998. It
23 December 1998 where
also details a follow-up appointment on
it was concluded the petitioner was "doing well" and that he was
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
SERGEA
SMC
placed on light duty for two weeks.
documented medical examination/follow-up subsequent to
23 December 1998.
There is no other
C .
With all due respect to the Senior Medical Officer
ho provided the Memorandum of 10 December 2001, the
Board is simply not persuaded or convinced that a review of the
petitioner's outpatient record more than two years after the
fact is proof positive that the petitioner's medical condition
or acclimatization resulted in his PFT failure.
supported by the fact that the petitioner failed only the
up portion of the PFT.
some four months earlier,
Okinawa climate,
have been affected.
This is further
pull-
Surely, if he was suffering from surgery
the three-mile run portion of the PFT would
and had not yet adjusted to the
The Board's opinion,
4.
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
of Sergeant.
based on deliberation and secret ballot
fficial military record.
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 | CY2002 | 08768-01
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 | CY2002 | 07271-00
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 | 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 | 08897-02
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 4 October 2002, a copy of which is attached. Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosure HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3250 RUSSELL...
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 | 04709-01
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 8 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04811-00
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 | 10848-02
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. 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...
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 | 00379-02
You requested removal of your fitness reports for 1 March to 28 August 1998 and 1 October to 14 November 1998, as well as documentation of your relief for the good of the service from recruiting duty. ” CMC also “Recruited SNM was put on bed rest/no duty due to pregnancy problems/back problems. (2), the approval authority (GOS) relief from recruiting duty, has supports her request for Additionally, enclosure Based upon this review, 2. following errors require corrective action.