DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370.510
0
BJG
Docket No: 8086-02
15 November 2002
2-J
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.
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modification of the
contested fitness report for 29 December 1992 to 26 April 1993 by removing the last sentence
of 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. 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
2002, a copy of which is attached.
(PERB), dated 12 September
In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained
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 the report of the PERB. They did not find any inconsistency between the reporting
senior’s comments and the two “EX” (excellent) marks he assigned you. In view of the
above, your application for relief beyond that effected by CMC 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
Y
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL
QUANTICO. VIRGINIA 22
ROAD
134.6 103
IN
REPLY
REFER
To:
1610
MMER/PERB
SEP 1 2 2002
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:
Ref:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
R APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR
USMC
(a)
(b)
Maj
MC0
P1610.7C
DD Form 149 of 18 Jun
w/Ch 1-6
02
Per
MC0
1610.11C,
the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
1.
with three members present,
Majo
the fitness report for the period 921229 to 930426 (TR) was
requested.
directive governing submission of the report.
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation
petition contained in reference (a).
met on 5 September 2002 to consider
Removal of
The petitioner contends the report should be eliminated
2.
because of the "unjust nature" of the "excellent" marks in Items
13e (Handling Enlisted Personnel) and
14i (Force) of Section B.
Additionally, he believes the Reviewing Officer's comments are
. sustain the unclear nature of the entire
ambiguous and
the petitioner furnishes his
report."
own detailed statement where he denies being counseled on any
deficiencies.
To support his appeal,
. ".
In its proceedings,
the PERB concluded that, with one
the report is both administratively correct and
3.
exception,
procedurally complete as written and filed.
offered as relevant:
The following is
a.
At the outset, the Board emphasizes that a mark of
In this regard,
"excellent" does not equate to a deficiency that required
specific counseling.
counseling can and does take place in many styles and forms.
Certainly the inherent relationship between the petitioner and
his Reporting Senior
At this
would have ensured some type of performance feedback.
juncture, some nine years after the fact, it is not possible to
determine precisely to what extent such counseling or feedback
occurred.
(Battery Commander/Commanding Officer)
the Board observes that
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR
MC
b.
The Board agrees with the petitioner concerning the
B
k 3 of the Reviewing
early indicated his
Reviewing Officer's action.
Officer's Certification, Colon
concurrence with the Reporting
His final sentence confuses the reader and appears gratuitous,
The Board does not, however, conclude that complete
at best.
removal of the report is warranted.
elimination of the objectionable verbiage (i.e.,
would have rated him as 4 of 4 in the OS block of GVS but the
competition is exceptionally keen in his organization and I will
bow to the RS who observes all on a daily basis.").
Senior's general value grading.
"I personally
Instead, they have directed
The Board's opinion,
4.
vote, is that the contested fitness report, as modified, should
remain a part of Maj
based on deliberation and secret ballot
official military record.
5.
The case is forwarded for final action.
Deputy Director
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06123-02
Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) has directed that the report for 12 July 1997 to 31 July 1998 be modified by removing the “Exercises acceptable judgment and following from the reporting senior (RS) comments: leadership.” Petitioner further requested removal of his failure of selection before the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, so that he will be considered by the selection board next convened to consider officers of his...
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 | CY2001 | 04368-01
request for the By enclosure 3. a copy of the Advisory Opinion contained at (3), this Headquarters provide encl ith Review Branch Personnel Management Division By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY ,._iDQUARTERS UNITLD STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROAD QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB 2 1 MAY 2001 From: To: Subj: CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) MC0 1610.11C Per the reference, 1. has reviewed allegations of error and...
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 | CY2001 | 01118-01
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has removed the duplicate copy of your fitness report for 31 December 1986 to 26 May 1987 and modified this report, as you requested, by adding the reviewing officer's comments. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 8 February 2001, a copy of which is attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04688-00
Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removal of the following sentence from the reporting senior’s comments: “Makes up for lack of force and aggressiveness with dogged determination. They found that this sentence was inconsistent with the favorable marks in these areas, not, as you contend, that the sentence was the reporting senior ’s justification for lower than “OS” marks. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05333-01
directed that your Naval record will be corrected by removing therefrom the following fitness report: Having reviewed all the facts of record, the Board has the Performance Evaluation Review Board Date of Keport Reporting Senior Period of Report 22 Jan 99 980801 to 981231 (CH) There will be inserted in your Naval record a memorandum in 2. review ailed + Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) to remove the Change of Reporting Senior Fitness Report for the period 980801 to 981231. equests...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04402-01
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by removing the fitness report for 3 August 1995 to 31 May 1996, a copy of which is at Tab A. In correspondence attached as enclosure (3), the HQMC office having cognizance over the subject matter of Petitioner’s request to strike his failure of selection for promotion has commented to the effect...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08728-01
The contested fitness reports were not removed until after both of Petitioner failures of selection to lieutenant colonel. ’s C. In correspondence attached as enclosure (3), the HQMC Officer Assignment Branch, Personnel Management Division (MMOA4) has commented to the effect that Petitioner request to remove his FY 2002 failure of selection has merit and warrants favorable action. z's request for de of Enclosure (2) is furnished to assist in selec By enclosure 3. with a copy of the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01974-00
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has granted your requests to file a clear copy of the fitness report for 18 May 1981 to 4 February 1982, remove the reviewing officer comments from that report, and remove part of a sentence from the report for 30 March to 9 May 1983. fitness reports was requested: Removal of the a. b. Board is directing the complete removal of the Reviewing Officer comments furnished by Colonel Julian since reference contained no provision to allow...