DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR C O R R E C T I O N O F N A V A L R E C O R D S
2 N A V Y A N N E X
W A S H I N G T O N D C 2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0
BTG
Docket No: 4217-03
11 September 2003
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 11 September 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 6 May 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 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.
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
H E A D 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 . V I R G I N I A 22 134-5 1 0 3
I N R E P L Y R E F E R TO:
1610
MMER/ PERB
MAY 0 6 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
USMC
Ref:
(a) SSg
(b) MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-2
D Form 149 of 10 Feb 03
1. 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 reference (a). Removal
of the fitness report for the period 010101 to 010925 (TR) was
requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation
directive governing submission of the report.
2. The petitioner contends the report is unjust since the
overall evaluation is based solely on percentages for that
period. To support his appeal, the petitioner furnishes his own
statement and a copy of the Certificate of Merit he received for
completion of a tour on recruiting duty.
3. In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a. At the outsct, the Eoard emphasizes that, with a few
exceptions delineated in reference (b), every fitness report is
to document performance during that finite period. Conse-
quently, the report at issue correctly focused, in part, on the
petitioner's failure to achieve his recruiting mission. Also
contained within the report are comments from both the Reporting
Senior and Reviewing Officer concerning the petitioner's weak
commitment, initiative, and attitude.
b. The Certificate of Merit was issued in consonance with
the petitioner completing a full tour on recruiting duty.
Issuance of the certificate is "pro forma" to all who fulfill
the tour requirements. Succinctly stated, it does not disprove
- z c:rt
report.
3ci.1b+ z'n t h ~ arrursr:: nr f3irn~ss of t h r cha7lhen~.rn?
Subj : MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISOR
SERGEAN
E CASE OF STAFF
SMC
c. It is the position of the PERB that to justify the
deletion or amendment of a fitness report, evidence of probable
error or injustice should be produced. Such is not the
situation in this particular case.
4. The Board's opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
of Staff Sergea
:official 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 | CY2003 | 02766-03
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. Report B - 940419 to 950228 (AN). c. While the advocacy letters from Captain-and Sample all speak highly of the Master Sergeants -and petitioner's performance during the period covered by Report B, the Board concludes that none of those three individuals were in the petitioner's direct...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 04790-03
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PEW), dated 2 June 2003, a copy of which is attached. (6), concerning section A, item 8b (physical fitness test (PFT)) of the fitness report form, says "Use code 'NMED' [not medically qualified] if the MRO warine reported on] is unable to take or pass the PFT because of a physical (medical) condition." The "NMED" entry in Item 8b of the fitness report, whi.ch is further...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02761-03
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 28 March 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01970-99
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) officer's comments from both reports. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Board (PERB), dated 16 March 1999, a copy of injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative reg 1 lations and procedures the members of the panel will be...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03156-01
You also made new requests to remove your relief for cause from recruiting duty, which was requested on 5 April 1999; your nonjudicial punishment of 29 March 1999; and your service record page 11 counseling entries dated 17 and 24 February 1999. We are asked to provide an advisory opinion on Petitioner's request for the removal from his Service Record Book (SRB) and his official military personnel file (OMPF) of all references to his nonjudicial punishment (NJP) of 29 March 1999 and...
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 | CY1999 | 01967-99
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 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members resent, met on 16 March 1999 to consider Staff Sergean A t i t i o n contained in reference (a). Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
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 | CY2003 | 07244-03
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. The Board was unable to find the contested fitness report was in reprisal for your request mast. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 08472-98
Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this 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 NAVY H E A - 4 U A R T L R S U N I T E D STATES M A R I N E CORPS 3 2 8 0 R U S S E...