DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR
CORRECTtON OF NAVAL RECORDS
2
NAVY
ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BJG
Docket No:
29 January 2003
10853-02
Dear Serg
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 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 PERB. They particularly noted that you do not assert you were unaware
of the contents of the contested fitness report, or unaware of your right to make a statement
in rebuttal, Therefore, even if the signature is section J.2 of the report were, as you allege, a
In view of the
forgery, this would not be a material error warranting removal of the report.
above, 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
DEPARTMENTOFTHENAV
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORP
D
3280 RUSSELL ROA
22
QUANTICO. VIRGINIA
Y
S
134-LI 1 OS
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
DEC 1
2002
9
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
SERGEANT
SMC
(a)
(b)
Sergean
MC0
P1610.7E
DD Form 149 of 2 Jul 02
Per
MC0
1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
1.
with three members present,
Sergeant
of the fitness report for the period 990209 to 990331 (AN) was
requested.
directive governing submission of the report.
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation
petition contained in reference (a).
met on 18 December 2002 to consider
Removal
The petitioner contends the signature in Item
2.
report is not his.
52 of the
In its proceedings,
3.
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
written and filed.
The following is offered as relevant:
the PERB concluded that the report is
a.
A member of th
Reporting Senior (Capt
inquired as to the pet
emphatic that the
presence.
peti
b.
To further investigate the petitioner's contention, the
Twentynine Palms,
California in obtaining a
PERB requested the assistance of the Criminal Investigation
Division,
handwriting analysis.
Regional Forensic Laboratory, San Diego, California, conducted
said analysis.
Laboratory concluded that the petitioner "very probably signed
his own name"
opined that a more definitive opinion could have been rendered
if the original document was still available (which it is not).
In their report of 11 December 2002, the NCIS
on the challenged fitness report.
The Naval Criminal Investigative Service
They further
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
SERGEANT
USMC
The Board's opinion,
based on deliberation and secret ballot
is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
4.
vote,
of Sergeant
official military record.
Owing to the fact that the NCIS report may not be disclosed
5.
without the consent of that agency,
Analysis and the petitioner's statement provided to CID are not
included herein.
maintained in the PERB
offices and may be viewed by a member of the BCNR staff.
They are, however,
a copy of their Report of
6.
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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08253-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 3 1 October 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. d. e. f. g - Including paraphrased statements from the JAG manual investigations is precluded by reference (b) The JAG manual investigation was...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08387-01
Petitioner denied that the applicant Petitioner was offered, and he accepted, NJP. Analysis a. Petitioner claims that his NJP was unjust because he believes the preliminary inquiry into his misconduct contained "inconsistencies" a statement Petitioner made at the NJP. The record of the NJP reveals that the NJP was just.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08696-02
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 | 06881-99
They were unable to find how, if at all, his report influenced your nonjudicial punishment or your removal from the 1998 staff sergeant selection list, nor could they find how he changed his opinions following the review of his report by the CO. We reviewed Sergeant documents concerning his Administrative Remarks page 11 entries dated 980804 and 981125, Offenses and Punishment page 12 entry dated 990311 and CMC letter 1450/3 MMPR-2 dated 2. In view of the above, it is recommended...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00836-02
Not withstanding the requirement to report the petitioner's unfortunate failing, of his overall performance and with a most positive "word picture" in Section I. nothing in this process was a quick the report appears to be a fair evaluation Contrary to the Both officers and failing to properly execute that bf enclosure (6) to reference (a), In paragraph seven I MEF clearly holds the petitioner responsible toward C . The petitioner is correct that paragraph 5005 of reference (a) requires the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06056-02
The petitioner has provided nothing to support his claim of injustice or that he was denied an opportunity to appeal the NJP (i.e., NJP occurred and was correctly recorded via the performance evaluation system. However, Petitioner did not appeal his punishment and does not claim that he was denied the right to do so. it is the NJP However, offenses.- C .
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 | CY2002 | 05129-02
JEPARTMENT OF THE NAV Y HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROAD QUANT ICO, V IRGINIA 221 34-51 0 3 : IN REPLY REFER TO 1610 MMER/PERB MAY ltitil 0 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 APP SERGEAN E CASE OF STAFF USMC (a) (b) SSgt MC0 P1610.7D s DD Form 149 of 15 Jan 02 w/Ch 1-4 Per MC0 1610.11C, 1. with three members...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05812-01
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. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation Sergean \ the petitioner denies that Maj The petitioner contends the command failed to follow proper 2. procedures in investigating allegations; that he was basically found...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07830-02
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...