DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2
NAVY
ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BJG
Docket No: 4233-03
15 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 7 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 PERB. The Board was unable to find the contested fitness report was
“B”
used as a counseling document. The Board was likewise unable to find your mark of
(second lowest) in item F.3 was based entirely on your level of physical fitness. Finally, the
“300” on the physical fitness test was documented
Board noted that your outstanding score of
in item 8.b. In view of the 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,
Enclosure
3280 RUSSELL ROA
D
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA
22
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
134.5 10 3
IN REPLY REFER TO:
161 0
MMER/PERB
2003
MAY
7
0
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:
Fief:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISOR
SERGEAN
(4
(b)
DD Form 149 of 29 Jan 03
P1610.7E
SS
MC0
w/Ch l-2
CASE OF STAFF
USMC
Per
MC0
1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
1 .
with three members present,
Sergeant
Removal of the fitness report for the period 000706 to 001120
(TR) was requested.
directive governing submission of the report.
spetition contained in reference (a).
met on 5 May 2003 to consider Staff
(b) is the performance evaluation
Reference
The petitioner contends the report is unjust and inaccurate
2.
and that the markings are not commensurate with her actual
performance.
her own detailed statement and letters from Gunnery Sergeant
mnd Staff
the petitioner furnishes
To support her appeal,
Sergea
In its proceedings,
3.
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
The following is offered as relevant:
written and filed.
the PERB concluded that the report is
a.
A review of the challenged fitness report fails to
reveal any noted deficiencies or performance less than
acceptable.
have been specifically counseled and given the opportunity to
improve is not considered valid.
As a result, the petitioner's claim that she should
b.
While the advocacy statements
(a) are complimentary and supportive,
those testaments was in a position to
document
Sergeant
from which to better observe the results of the petitioner's
performance; nor were they also not privy to any dialogue
between the petitioner and her Reporting Senior.
included with reference
neither person furnishing
officially evaluate/
wise, Gunnery
ere not in positions
tioner's
nd Staff
perfor
Sergea
Subj:
MA RINE CORPS PERFO
ADVISORY
SERGEANT
RMA NCE EVALUATI
O N RE VI EW
BOARD ( PER B)
SE OF STAFF
SMC
C .
The petitioner's 300 Physical Fitness Test (PFT) score
could have been mentioned in Section I.
required by reference (b), and Capta
does not somehow contribute to the petitioner's belief that the
report is inaccurate or unfair.
That, however, is not
failure to do so
d.
That Lieutenant Colone
Reviewing Officer assessment
Again, that action
choice.
Likewise, Lieutenant Colone
submission of the report within the prescribed 30-day period
does not cast doubt as to the substantive accuracy of the
overall evaluation.
weeks is considered insignificant.
Simply stated,
the delay of just over two
pted to submit his
cientN was strictly his
rove the report is unjust.
failure to ensure
as
e.
Succinctly stated, the petitioner has failed to prove
that the report is either in error or unjust.
nothing furnished with reference (a) documents
specifically,
precisely how or why she should have rated more than what has
been recorded.
More
The Board's opinion,
4.
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
of Staff Sergeant
based on deliberation and secret ballot
official military record.
5.
The case is forwarded for final action.
ormance
Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
2
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 | CY2001 | 04564-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 4 June 2001, a copy of which is attached. The Board found that your more favorable recruiter fitness report for 1 March to 30 November 1997, from a different reporting senior, did not invalidate the contested report. rt for the period 980101 to 980406 (CH) Reference (b) is the performance evaluation met on 31 May 2001 to consider Staff Removal The petitioner...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01250-99
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN COLONEL (2) Standard Addendum Page 1 of 9 (Frame Ell, 04 Fiche). attachments to fitness reports, other reference (b). 4. vote, remain a part of Colonel limited corrective actions through is that the contested fitness report, as modified, should 3a(7) are considered sufficient.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03795-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 4 May 2001, a copy of which is attached. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROAD 22 QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 134-5 103 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB 4 MAY 2001 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06691-01
The Board found the reviewing officer permissibly referred to matters outside the reporting period in question, in order to reply to issues you raised in your rebuttal to the contested fitness report. 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. As an adverse fitness report, the petitioner was afforded his rightful opportunity to acknowledge and respond...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10143-02
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board dated 15 November 2002, opy 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. VIRGINIA 22 D 194.2 102 Y 7 C/’ y 3 -L- .a IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB NOV 1 5 2002 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION...
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 | 08308-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 15 November 2001, a copy of which is attached. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board. .--- -----T- Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08637-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive Your allegations of error and session, considered your application on 17 January 2002. 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 13 December 2001, a copy of which is attached. Sincerely, W....
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07849-00
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board 2000, 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. plagiarize the work of another student while at the Staff Noncommissioned Officers Academy (SNCO Academy), and that his disenrollment was unwarranted.