DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVYANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BJG
Docket No: 2427-03
17 April 2003
Dear Staff 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.
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed that the beginning
date of the contested fitness report for 16 July 2001 to 17 January 2002 be changed to
30 September 2001, and further directed that the contested report for 16 July to
29 September 2001 be amended by deleting the following sentence from section I: "MRO
[Marine reported on] needs to maintain composure, tempered with judgement, when faced
with leadership challenges."
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 17 April 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 Board considered the report of
the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evalwntiorl Review Board (PERB), dated
18 March 2003, 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 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.
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
D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E N A V Y
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3260 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22 1 S 4 - 5 1 0 3
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
HAR 1 8 2003
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj :
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF STAFF
SERGEAN
SMC
Ref:
(a) SS - '
(b) M C r n C h 1-2
D Form 149 of 5 Nov 02
1. Per MCO 1610.11C1 the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
with three me
Staff Sergean
Removal of the following fitness reports was requested:
t, met on 12 March 2003 to consider
etition contained in reference (a).
a. Report A - 010716 to 020117 (TR)
b. Report B - 010716 to 010929 (FD)
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing
the submission of both reports.
2. The petitioner argues that the statements in Report A
conflict with those contained in Report B. He also points out
that during the period covered by Report B he never received a
6105 counseling entry or any derogatory material such as that
reflected in Report A. Finally, the petitioner believes that
Item 3b ("From" date) on Report A is in error. To support his
appeal, the petition=r furnish;.,^ c8::pi.-s of the reparts at issue
and copies of page 11 entries from his Service Record Book
(SRB) .
3. In. its proceedings, the PERB concluded that, with minor
exceptions, both reports are administratively correct and
procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is
offered as relevant:
a. The appraisal statements on Report A do not, as the
petitioner alleges, conflict with the verbiage in Section I on
Report B. Even if that were the case, the reports were written
by different Reporting Seniors and cover different periods of
duty. The petitioner is correct in identifying that Report A
incorrectly overlaps the period covered by Report B; however,
Subj : MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVI S
SERGE
HE CASE OF STAFF
SMC
the Board does not find this to be invalidate the report.
Instead, the Board has directed that Item 3b of Report A be
changed to "20010930."
b. The petitioner's argument relative to Report B,
concerning non-receipt of a 6105 entry (or other derogatory
material) as indicated on Report A, is not germane. Both page
11 entries took place during the period covered by Report A and
are appropriately recorded in that appraisal.
c. Although the petitioner does not surface it in reference
(a), Section I of Report B contains "adverse" comments and
appears contrary to the overall evaluation. Since that report
has not been before any selection/propotion board, and the
petitioner has apparently not suffered any injustice by its
presence in his performance record, the Board has opted to
direct removal of the objectionable comments. They are: "MRO
needs to maintain compo we; tempered with judgement$%en
with leadership challenge#
faced
4. The Board's opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that the modified versions of the contested fitness
reports should remain a part of Staff Sergea
military record. The limited corrective actions identified in
subparagraphs 3a and 3c are considered sufficient.
fficial
5. The case is l,:8~na~ii,J fcbL final action.
Chairperson, Performance
Evaluation Reyiew Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 07213-98
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested report by changing the mark in item 14a ("endurance") from "above average" to "not observed. " Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE N A W HEADQUARTERS U N I T E D STATES M A R I N E CORPS 3280 R U S S E L L ROAD QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22 1 3 4 - 5 1 0 3 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB 5 Oct 98 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL...
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 .
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02430-03
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 18 March 2003, a copy of which is attached. V I R G I N I A 22 1 3 4 - 9 1 03 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB MAR 1 8 2003 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj : MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISOR SERGEAN HE CASE OF STAFF SMC Ref: (a) SSgt (b) MCO P1610.7E DD Form 149 of 30 Dec 02 1. 'CH"...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03751-00
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed that the memorandum for the record be filed in your official record stating name, grade and title of the third sighting officer. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280RUSSELLROA D QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-510 3 TO: IN REPLY REFER 1610 MMER/PERB 2 4 MAY 2008 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Sub-i: Ref: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00224-01
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. ::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 | 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 | CY2001 | 03138-01
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed amendment of the contested fitness report to reflect you were the subject of a meritorious mast. Your allegations 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 18 April 2001, a copy of which is attached.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02974-01
Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. They were unable to find that block 18 was incorrectly marked to show the report was based on “daily” observation, noting observation need not be direct. 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.
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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03760-99
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 7 June 1999, and the memorandum furnished by HQMC dated 25 August 1999, copies of which are attached. c. First Sergean explanations into is no excuse for Officer and Adverse Sighting Officer. Contrary to the information included in subparagraph 3b of reference (b), further research indicates that the Adverse Sighting Officer (Lieutenant Colone fitness...