DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
Dear S
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 21 November 2002. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures
applicable to the proceedings of this Board.
consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your
naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review
Board (PERB), dated 16 October
2002, a copy of which is attached.
Documentary material considered by the Board
In addition, the Board
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
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
PERB. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and
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
3280 RUSSELL ROA
D
QUANTICO. VIRGINIA 22
194-S
Y
I03
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
OC T 1
tj 2002
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:
Ref:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPI
STAFF SERGE
OF
SMC
(a)
(b)
SSgt
MC0
orm 149 of 1 Aug 02
-2
1.
Per
MC0
I with three members
Sergean
Staff
Removal of th
1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
met on 9 October 2002 to consider
tion contained in reference (a).
ess reports was requested:
a.
b.
Report A
- 000101 to 001231 (AN)
Report B
- 010101 to 010731 (TR)
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing
the submission of both reports.
The petitioner contends the reports are substantively
2.
inaccurate in their appraisals of his performance.
belief that the outstanding comments in Section I are
inconsistent with the assigned markings; that no semi-annual
counseling occurred to alert him on a decline in performance;
and that there is an inconsistency in the Reviewing Officer's
comparative assessments.
furnishes copies of the challenged reports and the one
immediately preceding Report A,
Book (SRB) to confirm the absence
Navy and Marine Corps Achievement medal, and a letter from
Master Sergeant Peto.
To support his appeal, the petitioner
o+f counseling, a copy of his
extracts from his Service Record
It is his
In its proceedings,
3.
administratively correct and procedurally complete as written
and filed.
The following is offered as relevant:
the PERB concluded that both reports are
a.
A review of both reports indicates the respective
reporting officials evaluated the petitioner's performance
appropriately and without any evidence of undue bias or
Subi:
2
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPI
SERGEA
STAFF
Although he has stated the reports do not reflect
prejudice.
his past performance and are inconsistent with the comments
in the respective Section I categories, the petitioner must
understand that it is his demonstrated performance and what
was accomplished during a specific
reflected in any fitness report.
report is not dependent on any of those issued either prior or
As for the petitioner's belief that the reports are
subsequent.
internally inconsistent the board discerns no evidence that this
is the case.
reporting period that is
Succinctly stated, one
b.
r of the PERB
To clarify the issue of co
He was very
staff contacted the Reporting Seni
every six
specific in statinq that his
months with each Marine who works for him and advise him or her
of job performance.
exception and that he was also given a copy of his fitness
report markings prior to signature.
the opportunity to review the marks, and if he disagreed, to
He was emphatic that the petitioner was no
The petitioner was offered
polic
Reporting Senior and discuss justification. Mr.
ted that he checked with the petitioner and was told
The foregoing not
problem with the assigned marks.
the Board finds nothing in reference (a) (to
withstanding,
include the advocacy statement from Master Sergeant Peto) to
indicate either report is inaccurate or unfair, or that the
petitioner somehow rated more than what has been recorded.
The Board's opinion,
4.
vote,
of Staff S
based on deliberation and secret ballot
itness reports should remain a part
fficial 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
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10143-02
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board dated 15 November 2002, opy 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. VIRGINIA 22 D 194.2 102 Y 7 C/’ y 3 -L- .a IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB NOV 1 5 2002 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 06069-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 August 2003. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. While you are correct that your record reflects no counseling entry about the incident cited in the contested fitness report, the Board was unable to were not counseled about the incident, noting that the third sighting...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05815-01
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 (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 | 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 | 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.
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 | 01130-01
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified your contested fitness report for 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000 to reflect that you were the subject of commendatory material. 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. The Board does not find that this omission invalidates an otherwise completely...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04564-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 4 June 2001, a copy of which is attached. The Board found that your more favorable recruiter fitness report for 1 March to 30 November 1997, from a different reporting senior, did not invalidate the contested report. rt for the period 980101 to 980406 (CH) Reference (b) is the performance evaluation met on 31 May 2001 to consider Staff Removal The petitioner...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06988-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 4 September 2001, a copy of which is attached. (G-2 Current some type of on-going the Board stresses In this regard, Additionally, Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINIO MASTER SERGEANT C are the comments by both the Reporting and more significant, Senior and Reviewing Officer concerning the petitioner's disregard of the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07986-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 November 2001. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 12 October 2001, a copy of which is attached. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation met on 10 October Sergean The petitioner contends the comments made by both th 2 .