Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08897-02
Original file (08897-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

BJG
Docket No: 8897-02
7 November 2002

MC

Dear Staff

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 4 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

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES

  MARINE CORPS

3250 RUSSELL ROA
QUANTICO,  VIRGINIA 22

D

 

134-5 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV

Y

103

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
OCT 0   4 
2002

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
SERGEAN

SMC

(a) 
(b) 

SSgt
MC0

D Form   149  of  18 
l-5

Jul 02

Per 

MC0 

1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
met on 2 October 2002 to consider
petition contained in reference (a).

1.
with three members present,
Staff 
Removal of the fitness report for the period 980609 to 980930
(DC) was requested.
directive governing submission of the report.

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation

Sergea

The petitioner contends the adversity of the report is

2.
not justified since he was never assigned to the weight
control/military appearance program during the reporting period.
To support his appeal,
fitness report and excerpts from his Service Record Book.

the petitioner furnishes a copy of the

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

the report (evidence his signature in Item  
any statement in his own behalf.
presumes he passively concurred in the accuracy of the
evaluation and that he had nothing to present in mitigation or
extenuation.
fairness of the report,
at that time.
both timeliness and credibility.

Had there been any question as to the accuracy or
those issues should have been surfaced

To do so some four years after the fact lacks

In so doing, the Board

24), he opted to omit

b.

The issue with the adversity of the report is that the

petitioner was not within established Marine Corps height/
weight/body fat percentage standards, not if he had been
assigned to the formal weight control/personal appearance
program.

Succinctly stated, nothing has been furnished to show

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION
SERGEAN

IN THE CASE OF STAFF

MC

that the information recorded in the report is either inaccurate
or unjust.

4.
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
of Staff 

based on deliberation and secret ballot

official military record.

The Board's opinion,

Sergean

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



Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 04197-02

    Original file (04197-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 00224-01

    Original file (00224-01.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. ::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 | CY1999 | 01250-99

    Original file (01250-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN COLONEL (2) Standard Addendum Page 1 of 9 (Frame Ell, 04 Fiche). attachments to fitness reports, other reference (b). 4. vote, remain a part of Colonel limited corrective actions through is that the contested fitness report, as modified, should 3a(7) are considered sufficient.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08696-02

    Original file (08696-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 08218-01

    Original file (08218-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 29 October 2001, a copy of which is attached. While there may have been other iterations of the report, the one which is ultimately forwarded to and accepted by Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 04360-03

    Original file (04360-03.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. Sincerely, Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROA D QUANTICO, “,RG,NlA 22 134-S I03 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB 9 2003 MAY 1 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE CORPS...

  • 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 | CY2001 | 04711-01

    Original file (04711-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 07293-01

    Original file (07293-01.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. 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. the very documentation included with reference (a) counters the The petitioner had been assigned to In...