DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
X
2 NAVY ANNE
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
S
BJG
Docket No: 8696-02
7 November 2002
Dear Serg
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 7 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 (PERB), dated 27 September 2002, 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
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
Y
3280 RUSSELL ROA
D
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22
134-S 10 3
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
SEP 2
7 2002
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
SERGEAN
SMC
Ref:
(a)
(b)
Sergea
Pl
MC0
Form 149 of 20 Jul 02
Per
MC0
1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
1 .
with th
Sergean
Removal of the fitness report for the period 000401 to 001101
(CH) was requested.
directive governing submission of the report.
esent, met on 25 September 2002 to consider
petition contained in reference (a).
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation
The petitioner states the challenged report is "undeserved",
2.
yet provides no statement in his own behalf.
current Company Commander,
detailed analysis as to why
inaccurate and unjust.
Instead, his
furnishes a
is both
In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is
3.
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
written and filed.
We offer the following as relevant:
a.
Captain
present during
ntends the Reviewing Officer was not
period and states the
followina:
L
"Sst
Reporting Seni
r 2001 and wro
howev
te him from April
a fitness report
ed that he had also
April 2001 and he
The Reviewing
statement is not accurate!
that was not adverse-
evaluated
had not."
Officer made no such comment.
officer merely checked "sufficient"
observation (Item
indicated his nonconcurrence with the report in Item K2.
umed command of Weapons
Regardless of when
Company, on the ending date of the fitness report at issue he
was the rightful Reviewing Officer.
the Reviewing
In Section K,
Majo
Kl) and
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
SERGEA
MC
Captai
to
argument
rmal
b.
The Board does not accept
A review of the "Military Education" information on
(1996), Light Armored Vehicle
This education,
that the petitioner's failure was due
training.
the petitioner's Master Brief Sheet reflects that, among other
training, the petitioner completed the following: Sergeant non-
(1998), and LAV Officer
resident
as well as prior billets as a Platoon
(1999).
Guide, Squad Leader/Vehicle Commander, and Platoon Sergeant
would certainly have aided the petitioner in his billet
assignment (Vehicle Commander) during the period covered by the
The foregoing not withstanding, the
challenged fitness report.
Board observes that a majority of the petitioner's failings were
the result of his attitude and had nothing to do with his lack
of formal training.
C .
Again, the Board does not accept
Captai
argument that the word "draft" on the Addendum
the petitioner's rebuttal implies that document is nothing more
than a "draft working copy."
has been signed/dated by the petitioner and is considered a
valid document.
the petitioner's statement.
The word "draft" does not somehow invalidate
Simply stated,
the Addendum Page
S
ning
d.
Again, this statement is
In paragraph five of his letter, Captai
d
identifies enclosure (9) thereto as a "letter f
officer who sighted the adverse RO comments" supporting removal
of the report.
misleading.
letter is another letter signed by him in
an attached e-mail from Lieutenant Colone
removal of the r
Lieutenant Colon
either overtly o
stion.
de no such statement in his e-mail,
0 .
The letter at enclosure (9) to Captai
inaccurat
Succi
e.
The issue is not whether the petitioner's performance
and conduct have improved since he received the challenged
fitness report.
that evaluation.
the Board discerns absolutely no error or injustice.
they find nothing to document precisely how or why the
petitioner may have rated more than what has been recorded.
The only issue is the accuracy and fairness of
analysis not withstanding,
Captain
Likewise,
2
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
SERGEA
SMC
4.
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
of Sergeant
based on deliberation and secret ballot
The Board's opinion,
ficial military record.
5
.
The case is forwarded for final action.
Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08072-02
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. height, weight, and body fat as He was also not within established Marine Corps 73", 227 pounds, and The report at issue reflects the petitioner's weight standards for his 19%, Subi: J MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD ADVIS SERGE E CASE OF STAFF USMC (PERB) respectively (over...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08637-01
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. 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. Sincerely, W....
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04711-01
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 | CY2001 | 00224-01
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. ::I MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISOR SERGEAN THE CASE OF STAFF ,USMC (a) (b) (c) SSgt. appeal, the petitioner furnishes his own statement detailing his perception of the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05312-01
In addition, the Board , considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Review Board Assignment Branch, Personnel Management Division of which are attached. VIRGINIA 221 34-51 03 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) Ref: LIEUTENAN (a) (b) LtC MC0 D Form 149 of 21 Mar 01 h 1- 2 MC0 Per 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, 1. with three memb Co10 Lieutenant Removal of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02641-00
The following comments concerning the page 11 entry dated 960112 4. are provided: a. The following comments concerning the page 11 entry dated 980326 5. are provided:' a. he was he statement would be filed acknowledged the counseling " to" make a statement in Again, it is noted that a copy of the rebuttal statement Sergean furthe b. Sergean does not provide documented evidence to support his claim that the page 11 entry is in error or unjust.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05114-02
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and In addition, the Board considered the report of applicable statutes, regulations and policies. report for the period 000801 to 010731 (AN) was Reference (b) is the performance evaluation requested. The petitioner contends the report violates policies and It is his position that he was never counseled 2. instructions contained in...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06835-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 28 August 2001, a copy of which is attached. matter is that Lieutenant Colonel Officer for the challenged fitness report. of the reporting period, The fact of the s not the Reviewing For the last 52 days his successor (Lieutenant Colonel Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04559-01
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. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation etition contained in reference (a). removal of the report is simply not Even if he had, Unless and until that action is set aside or the Board is haste the Board Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD ADVISORY SERGEANT HE CASE...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 04233-03
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.