DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
X
2 NAVY ANNE
S
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
BJG
Do
18 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
Your allegations of error and
session, considered your application on 17 January 2002.
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 13 December 2001, a copy of which is attached.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the
existence.of probable material error or
evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the
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 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 THE NAV
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
D
3280 RUSSELL ROA
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 221 34-51 0
Y
3
IN REPLY REFER
TO:
?lk?/
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
1610
MMER/PERB
'3
OEC
Subj:
Ref:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
MASTER SERGEANT
USMC
(a)
(b)
MSgt
MC0
P1610.7E
D Form 149 of 10
w/Ch l-2
Ott 01
1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
Per
MC0
1.
with three members present,
Master
Removal of the fitness report for the period
(CH) was requested.
directive governing submission of the report.
Reference
Sergean
met on 12 December 2001 to consider
etition contained in reference (a).
001001 to 001024
(b) is the performance evaluation
It is his position that at no time was he ever counseled
The petitioner contends the report is in direct violation of
(b) and infers it has been used as a "counseling
2.
reference
tool."
or told that he was not performing "above and beyond" what was
expected of him as either a Master Sergeant or a Maintenance
Chief.
statement, a letter from
other fitness reports.
the petitioner furnishes his own
To support his appeal,
and copies of
Sergean
.
In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is
.3
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
written and filed.
The following is offered as relevant:
a.
At the outset, the Board emphasizes that the issues the
petitioner raises in reference (a) are the same basic objections
he surfaced in his official rebuttal to the report.
matters were sufficiently resolved and corrected prior to
submission of the report or are so insignificant that corrective
action is not deemed necessary.
Those
b.
To alleviate any question of "counseling", the Reporting
as contacted on 14
He specifically stated there were numerous
Senior (now Lieutenant
November 2001.
counseling sessions,
petitioner's difficulty in performing his assigned duties.
stated the reason it was not reflected on prior fitness reports
both written and verbal, regarding the
Co10
He
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD
ADVISORY OPIN
SERGEA
MASTER
(PERB)
OF
SMC
was because the command was aware the petitioner was new to the
community and wanted to allow ample time for him to become more
experienced in the
EA-6B aircraft.
C .
The Board observes that Lieutenant Colon
petitioner's Reviewing Officer on the immediately preceding
fitness report and provided insightful comments on that
appraisal.
the 24 days covered by the report at issue.
still within his rightful prerogative in rendering an "observed"
fitness report.
injustice.
He obviously observed the petitioner for longer than
Regardless, he was
To this end, we discern neither an error nor an
as the
d.
While
Sergea
letter is certainly
it does nothing to negate the judgmental evaluations
supportive,
of either the Reporting Senior or Reviewing Officer, both of
whom were in the petitioner's direct reporting chain.
other fitness reports may reflect decidedly higher evaluations,
but they do not serve as valid gauges in determining the
validity of the challenged fitness report.
Likewise,
The Board's opinion,
4.
vote, is that the contested fitness
of Master
Sergean"
based on deliberation and secret ballot
report should remain a part
fficial military record.
5.
The case is forwarded for final action.
airperson,
ormance
Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
2
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 | 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 | CY2002 | 08331-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 January 2002. 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 20 November 2001, a copy of which is attached. and the petitioner was disenrolled for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05307-01
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removal of the contested fitness report for 1 November 1987 to 29 February 1988. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board 2001, a copy of which is attached. (3) The petitioner is incorrect in her statement it was the petitioner who First, concerning the failure of the Reporting Senior to annotate paternity leave in Report B. signed Item 22...
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 | 02742-01
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 29 March 2001, a copy of which is attached. In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the error was in 3. the "from" dates on the petitioner's fitness reports for the periods...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06690-01
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed that the contested fitness report for 1 August to 8 December 1991 be modified by removing all but the first sentence of the reporting senior’s comments in section C. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 October 2001. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03795-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 4 May 2001, a copy of which is attached. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROAD 22 QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 134-5 103 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB 4 MAY 2001 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR...
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 | CY2002 | 07245-01
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested fitness report for 17 April to 31 December 1999 by changing the beginning date to 18 June 1999, and adding “MRO [Marine reported on] attended and completed Joint Aviation Supply Maintenance Management Course. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 14 September 2001, a copy of which is attached. require a mandatory...