DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
2
BJG
Docket No: 10846-02
27 January 2003
Dear Staff
Sergean
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 Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removal of the
contested fitness report for 3 July to 24 August 2001.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 24 January 2003. 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
considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review
Board
(PERB), dated 19 December 2002, a copy of which is attached.
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
reporting senior regarding your performance as a career planner.
generally do not grant relief on the basis of an alleged absence of counseling, as counseling
In view
takes many forms, so the recipient may not recognize it as such when it is provided.
of the above, your application for relief beyond that effected by CMC has been denied. The
names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
PERIL They were unable to find you were not counseled by the
In this regard, they
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
In this regard, it is
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by
important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
the 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 22
134-5
103
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
BEC
2002
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
19
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:
Ref:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF STAFF
SERGEANT
USMC
(a)
(b)
(c)
SSg
MC0
MC0
P1610.7E
P1610.7E
DD Form 149 of 30 Sep 02
w/Ch 1
w/Ch l-2
Per
MC0
1.
with three members present,
Staff Sergeant
Removal of the
1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
met on 18 December 2002 to consider
petition contained in reference (a).
following fitness reports was requested:
a.
b.
C .
Report A
- 990525 to 991030 (CH). Reference
(b) applies
Report B
- 991031 to 991231 (AN). Reference (b) applies
Report C
- 010703 to 010824 (TR). Reference
(c) applies
The petitioner contends that all three reports fail to
2.
reflect accurate and fair evaluations of his performance during
the stated periods.
with Report C since the observation period is less than two
months.
alleges they are products of baseline reports of the respective
Reporting Seniors and biased in nature.
each report contains innuendos of adversity.
With specific regard to Reports A and B, the petitioner
is especially evident
He also believes that
he believes,
This,
3.
In its proceedings,
the PERB concluded that:
a.
Reports A and B are administratively correct and
procedurally complete as written and filed.
offered as relevant:
The following is
(1) At the outset,
the Board emphasizes that neither
Report A nor Report B contain any evidence of bias.
petitioner believes otherwise has not been documented or
substantiated.
In this regard,
the Board concludes the
That the
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY
HE CASE
SERGEA
MC
ON BCNR A
OPINION
petitioner has failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to
establish the existence of an error or injustice.
)
G&!/L-
--c”,1
dF STAFF
(2) There is absolutely no evidence of adversity in
either report,
argument to the contrary is viewed as his misinterpretation of
reference
by innuendo or otherwise.
The petitioner's
(b).
(3) The petitioner is mistaken in his belief that the
reporting officials have submitted inflated reports on other
Marines,
thereby negatively influencing the relative value of
Reports A and B.
A review of the profiles of both Reporting
Seniors indicates the petitioner's assumption is untrue and not
supportable.
b.
directed.
The removal of Report C is warranted and has been
The Board's opinion,
based on deliberation and secret ballot
4.
vote,
Sergeant
is that
Reports A and B should remain a part of Staff
fficial military record.
5.
The case is forwarded for final action.
PeFformance
Chairperson,
Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04197-02
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 | CY2002 | 07245-01
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested fitness report for 17 April to 31 December 1999 by changing the beginning date to 18 June 1999, and adding “MRO [Marine reported on] attended and completed Joint Aviation Supply Maintenance Management Course. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 14 September 2001, a copy of which is attached. require a mandatory...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07130-01
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed fitness report for 1 October 1998 to 19 April 1999 be amended by adding officer’s Addendum Page dated 26 June 2001. that the contested the third sighting A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 October 2001. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB),...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07535-01
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removal of the contested fitness reports for 1 January to 16 June 1996 and 2 August to 31 December 1996. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 20 September 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05808-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 20 July 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. was very little actual observation time by either the Reporting Senior or Reviewing Officer.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08417-07
You requested removing the fitness report for 1 June 2005 to 18 January 2006.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report by removing section K (reviewing officer marks and comments)A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 November 2007. Per MCD 1610 11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 29 August...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05819-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 August 2001. 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 20 July 2001, a copy of which is attached. Simply stated, this is a matter of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04534-01
regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official In this records. Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosure : DEPART h&ADQUARTERS QUANT M ENT OF THE NAVY UN 3280 I CO ITED STATES RUSSELL ROAD I RG I N I A , V 22 134 CORP S MAR -5 I NE 103 : REPLY REFER TO I N 1610 MMER/PERB 2001 ; JON 1 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: Encl: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03738-02
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 | CY2001 | 08165-00
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has amended the contested report for 19 September 1997 to 28 February 1998 by removing the reviewing officer’s comments. 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. The Board agrees with the petitioner concerning the Reviewing Officer's comments included with Report B. not, however, find that complete removal...