DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
NAVY
ANNEX
2
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
S
BJG
Docket No: 9235-02
26 November 2002
D
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.
It is noted that the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Section,
Personnel Management Support Branch, Personnel Management Division (MMSB-30) has
placed a memorandum in your record amending the contested fitness report to show you
should have been ranked among five officers, rather than six; and that you should be ranked
fifth of five.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 26 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 HQMC Performance Evaluation Review Board
22 October 2002, a copy of which is attached.
(PERB), dated
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 the report of the
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained
PERIL 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
In this regard,
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the
important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
Board.
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
3250 RUSSELL ROA
D
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22
124-S
Y
102
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
2 2 2002
OCT
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:
Ref:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY
OPINIPN ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR
SMC
(
(b)
MC0
P1610.7D
DD form 149 of 2 Jul
w/Ch 1-5
02
Per
1.
with three members present,
MC0
1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
L
:oetition contained in reference (a).
to his ranking in the Reporting Senior's
met on 17 October 2002 to consider
Requested
Certification on the fitness report for the period 980505 to
980731 (DC).
directive governing submission of the report.
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation
The petitioner contends that an administrative error
2 .
occurred relative to his ranking on the challenged fitness
6” or “5 of 6.” He
report and is reflected as either "2 of
states that the actual ranking could not be determined because
of an illegible copy and that his actual ranking should be
,,l of 6."
letter from the Reporting Senior of
the petitioner furnishes a
To support his appeal,
ret
In its proceedings,
3.
albeit illegible,
procedurally complete as written and filed.
offered as relevant:
The following is
the PERB concluded that the report,
is both administratively correct and
a.
Not withstandin
that the petitioner sho
be based
explanation has been given regarding the nature of the supposed
administrative error.
on any facts currently at his disposal.
letter, his conclusion
of 6” does not appear to
Likewise, no
b.
Research of the observed fitness reports written by
for the period in question is documented in the
Memorandum for the Record of 18 June 2002 and filed with the
fitness report at issue.
petitioner's fellow officers
Copies of the reports on the
reflect the following rankings:
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR
"not observ
6
.II
5 ”
v ice
\\
Regardless,
total of obs
em 15b.
SiG
ng 980715,
t
error in
Maj
have been re
received a C
\\
petitioner is not
been so modified.
reports
aid Lind
the provisions of the Privacy Act, they have not been
herein.
based on the reports on record, the
6", but rather "5 of 5."
NR staff desire to
"1 of
iice.
N/A"
ould
been
The record has
The Chairperson of the PERB spoke with the Reporting Senior
He was adamant that he did
4.
and advised him of the foregoing.
not want the report under consideration to hamper the
petitioner's future promotional opportunities and would,
therefore,
and change the other reports accordingly
informed that such an action would need
a future request by the petitioner to the
like to rewrite the evaluation as "not observed"
PERB/BCNR.
S
f
The Board's opinion,
5.
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
of
based on deliberation and secret ballot
ficial military record.
6.
The case is forwarded for final action.
ine Corps
Deputy Director
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06600-02
consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Finally, as they did not find the RO comments to be adverse, they found no requirement that they be referred any event, they noted that the applicable fitness report order, Marine Corps Order P did not expressly prohibit RO (as opposed to reporting senior) comments that reflect praise. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06721-00
t for the period 960914 to 970710 (TR) was Removal of Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive requested. evidenced in the final paragraph of enclosure (6) to reference REPORTING SENIORS HERE WILL BE (a) (i.e., "FITNESS REPORTS. THE FITNESS REPORTS.").
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07468-02
Regarding the remaining contested fitness report for 1 November 6 December 1996, Petitioner contends that this report is adverse, but was as it should have been, for the opportunity to make a rebuttal; that the comments and marks are inconsistent; that this report was submitted at the same time as the preceding report at issue, giving him no time to improve; and finally, that this report, in which he was ranked below all six of the other captains compared with him, was an attempt to help the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05411-01
What is significant is that Colonel That matter not Subi: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR USMC :current assessment of the performance recorded in the challenged fitness report is based observation." o e case of request for removal of Per the reference, we reviewed 2. petition. removed, the record would have been more competitive, but not enough to warrant removal of the failure of selection.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02797-00
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. ARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS ~~EORUSSELLROAD QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR E CASE OF USMC (a)...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05322-02
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed that the contested fitness report for 1 January to 30 September 1998 be amended by changing the reporting senior’s certification to reflect your peer ’s primary military occupational specialty (PMOS) was “7543 [EA-6B pilot], ” rather than “7204 [anti-air warfare]. In this regard, they substantially concurred with the advisory opinion from CMT with respect to the error in your peer unlikely that the discrepancy concerning...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03811-01
If that action is not possible, then the petitioner (b) is the Reference \\ . " s the Reviewing Officer on those two reports, as he was Colonel that if Colone he would have so stated in his review. Further, we recommend that his request for a special selection board through BCNR be denied since he has not exhausted the appropriate administrative procedures for requesting a special selection board set forth in references (b) and (c) contact in this matter is Capt Head, Promotion...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06693-01
At the outset, the board observes that Colone was the proper Reporting Senior for Report A (so acknow when the petitioner si that Lieutenant Colone Section B marks and Section C comments has absolutely no grounding in fact. Report B was completed a little over two months after the end of ased his observation PI he still had daily 2 Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR USMC the reporting period is not...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05607-01
in the report of the PERB in finding that the contested fitness report should stand. VIRGINIA 221 34-51 0 Y 3 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER,'PERB 2001 1 JUL 3 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 SERGEA SMC (a) Sergeant (b) MC0 P1610.7E s DD Form 149 of 1 May 01 Per MC0 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, 1. with three...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05327-01
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 Review Board (PERB), dated 3 July 2001, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC Career Management Team, dated 2 August 2001, copies of which are attached. Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD...