Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08880-02
Original file (08880-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAV

Y
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2  NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC

 

20370-5100

BJG
Docket No: 8880-02
7 November 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 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 3 October 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 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

Y

QUANTICO,  VIRGINIA

3280 RUSSELL ROA
 

D

22134-5103

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/P  B
ifi
oc: 
I.

03*

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF STAFF
SERGEA

MC

------

-----

(a)
(b) 

SSgt
MC0

D Form 149 of 28 Nov 01
h 1-2

Per 

MC0 

1610.11C,  the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
met on 2 October 2002 to consider
etition contained in reference (a).
in Sections D, E, F, and G of his

1.
with three members present,
Staff Sergeant
sev
Changes to
fitness report for the period 010602 to 010912 (CH) were
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation
requested.
directive governing  

submis.sion  of the report.

vides a letter from the Reporting Senior

herein that officer states corrections

2.
of record
to the fitness
were to be made
forwarded to this Headquarters.
that the report was submitted, withou
while he was executing temporary additional duty orders.

report
It i

rior to it being

position
corrections,

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.

Lac
withstandin
that when t
of the report,

e evidence to the contrary, and not
the Board must presume
nior affixed his signature to Item  

statement,

Jl

all entries were correct.
ard's staff contacted the  
to discuss the situation.
ing his policy regarding his

In this regard, a
Reviewin

Reviewing Officer

responsibilities and stated that he not only discusses the
report and markings with Reporting Senior, but also speaks with
to the assessment and comments in
Marin
aid the challenged fitness
Secti
that he spoke with both
treat
and the petitioner on the contents of the report.

report was

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON
SERGEA

BCNR APPLICATION

IN THE CASE OF STAFF

MC

b.

There is no merit to the Reporting Senior's request to

In reviewing the petitioner's Master Brief Sheet and
OlOlOl-010601),  it is clear the

change the beginning date of the report to  
010602).
previous fitness report (TR,  
dates are correct.
period of nonavailabilit
previous command.
identified nor required to be identified since it was less than
30 days.

That period (010602-010612) was neither

id not account for was the
e petitioner left his

What

(vice/

\\

19AClrrC  

x00\
Q&

C .

It is the position of the PERB that to justify the

deletion or amendment of a fitness report, evidence of probable
error or injustice should be produced.
situation in this case.

Such is not the

The Board's opinion,

4.
vote, is that the contested fitness report, as currently
configured,
official military record.

should remain a part of Staff  

Sergean

based on deliberation and secret ballot

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



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10846-02

    Original file (10846-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05815-01

    Original file (05815-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08072-02

    Original file (08072-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 07832-02

    Original file (07832-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03738-02

    Original file (03738-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    petitioner's assignment to the Military Appearance Program was correctly included on the fitness reports. As with Report A, the adversity of Report B was that he was assigned to the Military Appearance Program. rmance Evaluation Review Board Personnel Management Division Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps 2 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROA D QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-510 3 MEMORANDUM FOR...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08897-02

    Original file (08897-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2002 | 07830-02

    Original file (07830-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the 1 February to 6 September 2001 by deleting the next to last contested fitness report for paragraph from the reviewing officer’(R0) Addendum Page dated 8 January 2002. While the petitioner may not have received counseling on shortcomings and deficiencies, the Board is haste to observe Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISOR SERGEAN HE CASE OF SMC whether or not a member of the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09131-02

    Original file (09131-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 16 October 2002, a copy of which is attached. The failure of the petitioner's unit to ensure that his assignment to weight control was reflected in MCTFS does...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06813-02

    Original file (06813-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY SERGEANT E CASE OF STAFF MC 5. MC0 P5354.1C, Marine MC0 1610.12, the U.S. 3 . The counseling entry meets the elements of a proper page 11 counseling in that it lists deficiencies, recommendations for corrective action, and states that Staff opportunity to make a rebutta Additionally, the entry affords him an opportunity to annotate whether or not he desires to make such a statement and if made, a copy of the statement...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06691-01

    Original file (06691-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...