DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAVY
B O A R D F O R CORRECTION OF NAVALRECORDS
2 N A V Y A N N E X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BTG
Docket No: 2430-03
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.
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 Evaluation 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 reprt of the PERR. Accordingly, 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
D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E N A V Y
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES M A R I N E CORPS
32ao RUSSELL R O A D
QUANTICO. 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. Per MCO 1610.11Cl the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
t, met on 12. March 2003 to consider
with t.hree m
Staff Sergea
petition contained in reference (a).
Removal of the fitness report for the period 990101 to 990331
(TR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation
directive governing submission of the report.
2. The petitioner alleges the report creates a substantive
injustice to his record and bases his argument on the fact that
the Reporting Senior and Reviewing Officer disagreed on the
evaluation. He also points out that the Reporting Senior was
eventually relieved of his duties. To support his appeal, the
petitioner furnishes letters from the Reviewing Officer/~quadron
utenant Colon
and the Executive Officer
3. In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is
both adminGctratively rnrrnrt ?,n? prnmy~4urally complete as
written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a. At the outset, the Board advises that it has some
concerns with Lieutenant Colone
he describes. As he points o
u
Reviewing Officer/Commanding Officer for quite some time prior
to him reviewing the challenged fitness report. In fact, three
prior performance evaluations list Lieutenant colon-s
the Reviewing Officer. As he also points out, he knew the
petitioner quite well and had ample opportunity to observe him
etter and the facts
t
m
n
the petitioner's
reporting period. Second, Lieutenant
statement about his reliance on Captai
ut is problematic since a review of Ca
own record contains no mention of him being relieved. In fact,
Subj : MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVI S
SERGE
THE CASE OF STAFF
USMC
ceived a change of
p Commander, Colonel
duties following
on I comment on
the period 990101 to 990515
.' 'CH" report is there any
. Once Lieutenant Colonel
Executive Officer
assumed duties as the Command
provisions of the Privacy Act, copies of
itness reports have not been included. They
able for reviewing in the PERB office by a
member of the BCNR staff.
b. When Lieutenant Colone
ompleted Section K on
the fitness report at issu
over a year. None of the
pressured Lieutenant Colon
the petitioner. Rather, Li
personal knowledge of the
assessment and comments (Sections K3 and K4, respectively).
c. The Board observes that Lieutenant Colon
as
now been the Reviewing Officer on a total of elevul 1 - e p ~ r - L s for
Marines in the grade of Staff Sergeant. Of those eleven
reports, six (including the petitioner) were marked in the same
block in Section K3. The ~o&d believes this begs the question
ied so heavily on Captain
that if Lieutenant Colon
ut, why hav
of other Staff Sergeants
been marked the same.
ails to provide any evidence of a biased
y either reportins official. First. she
-
or u
states that she reviewed
valuation and
recommended he rewrite his section I comments because thev -.'
bordered on being adverse. Apparen
that advice because there is nothing even remotely averse in the
- c.-
£01 lowed
v
Subj : MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY
SERGEANT
E CASE OF STAFF
MC
Section I comments (mandatory Section I word picture was not
required at this time).
ovides her own glowing appraisal
e. Alt
, she
of the peti
during the re
fails to furnish any evidence as to how Capta
biased. Simply because she may have rated th
does not somehow prove that a bias existed. Finally Major
igher
-nts
to the Reviewing Officer's unfamiliarity with the
resulting hesitancy in
rence with respect to two of the marks
ly stated, Lieutenant
sitant since he clearly
4. The Board's opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
of Staff Sergean -f
ficial 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
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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01555-99
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 3 March 1999, a copy of which is attached. V I R G I N I A 22 134-5 103 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/ PERB MAR 3 1999 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Sub j : MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF STAFF SERGEAY , USMC Ref: (a) SSgt- (b) MCO P1610.7C...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 05737-03
In correspondence attached as enclosure (3), the HQMC office having cognizance over the subject matter of Petitioner's request to strike his failure of selection for promotion has commented to the effect that this rcquest has merit and warrants favorable action.' Per the provisions of reference (b), the Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) has reviewed allegations of error and injustice in your naval record. His two fitness reports from this billet have relative values of 88.43 and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 04217-03
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 6 May 2003, 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. Per MCO 1610.11C1 the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 5 May 2003 to consider Staff serges-etition contained in...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08909-02
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested fitness report to delete references to matters that occurred before the reporting period. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 8 October 2002, a copy of which is attached. Chairperson, Performance Evaluation Review Board Personnel Management Division Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department By direction of the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 05733-03
We defer to BCNR on the issue of Lieutenant Colonel request for the removal of her failure of selection to the grade of Lieutenant Colonel. we furnished her with a copy of the Advisory Opinion Head, performance Evaluation Review Branch Personnel Management Division By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY I i E A O Q U A R T E R S U N I T E D S T A T E S M A R I N E C O R P S 3280 R U S S E L L R O A D Q U A N T I C O . Per the reference, we reviewed...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02269-03
V I R G I N I A 2 2 134-5 f 0 3 1N R E P L Y REFER TO: 1610 MMER/ PERB SEP 1 6 2003 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLIC SERGEANT -, U h N IN THE CASE OF S M C Ref : (a) S (b) MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-4 t . Evaluation Review Board Personnel Management Division Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps DEPARTMENT OF...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Thu Jan 25 09_58_26 CST 2001
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. At the outset, the Board stresses that the petitioner has References (b) not MCO P1610.7E as the argued the provisions of the incorrect directive. Succinctly stated, Lieutenant Colonej~~j& His limited To this end, the board discerns c. While the petitioner argues that the Reviewing...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03415-99
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. It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of p--+able material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02427-03
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. 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). The petitioner is correct in identifying that Report A incorrectly overlaps the period covered by Report...