DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BJG
Docket No:
17 September 2003
4375-03
cw
USMC
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 20 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.
Concerning your contention that you were never counseled for unsatisfactory work
performance, the Board noted the reviewing officer
(RO) states your oral reports to your
reporting senior indicated you were doing your job properly, but “It was clear after [you]
conducted [your] inventory that the information in
” The Board
was unable to find an investigation was needed to obtain information on which to base your
fitness report. The Board likewise was unable to find that your relief was hasty, or that it
was not based on facts. In this regard, the Board found nothing objectionable about the
use of phrases like “in my opinion” and “things that [you] did that possibly contributed to
these losses,” given the context in which these phrases appear. Finally, the Board found no
requirement for a Marine Corps Order to be cited in connection with every statement
reflecting a deficiency in your performance.
[your[ reports was incorrect.
RO’s
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,
Executive Dir
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO,
YlRClNlA 22
134-S
103
IN REPLY REFER TO:
161 0
MMER/PERB
i 0 2003
MAY
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD
CATION IN THE CASE
USM C
(PERB)
Ref:
(a) CWO
(b)
MC0
DD Form 149 of 15 Feb 03
/Ch l-
2
Per
1.
with three members present,
MC0
1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
tition contained in reference (a).
Removal of the
met on 15 May 2003 to consider CWO-2
fitness report for the period 010901 to 020214 (TR) was
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation
requested.
directive governing submission of the report.
The petitioner contends the report is an unjust and
2.
inaccurate evaluation of his performance during the stated
period.
statement and refers the Board to the contents of his official
rebuttal to the fitness report.
To support his appeal,
the petitioner provides his own
In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is
3 .
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
The following is offered as relevant:
written and filed.
a.
The report under consideration was the result of
unsatisfactory job performance following the petitioner's
The adversity was based, in part, on the petitioner's
relief.
failure to initiate corrective action to prevent supply losses
the petitioner concedes to
within the unit.
the fact that the inventory losses occurred.
mitigation, he points to the overall size of the unit account,
implying that the losses were minor in nature and did not
justify his relief or the adverse fitness report.
In his rebuttal,
However, in
b.
In his statement included with reference (a), the
petitioner has done nothing more than reiterate the same
arguments he surfaced in the detailed statements of rebuttal to
the fitness report.
Significantly absent, however, is any
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ATION IN
USMC
THE.CASE OF CW02
documentation to suggest that the points raised by the Reporting
Like-
Senior or Reviewing Officer were factually inaccurate.
wise, we find no evidence of bias or unfairness on the part of
any of the reporting officials.
Succinctly stated, it appears
that the petitioner's concerns were meticulously and thoroughly
adjudicated by Lieutenant
actions of both the Reporting
fully
Gener
in by the Third Sighting Officer, Brigadier
ally important, the
eviewing Officer were
enior an
Co10
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.
situation in this case.
Such is not the
The Board's opinion,
4.
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
of
based on deliberation and secret ballot
official military record.
5.
The case is forwarded for final action.
Marine Corps
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
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 | CY2003 | 06067-03
In addition, you requested that the fitness report for 1 to 6 June 2001 be modified, by changing the beginning date from 1 June 2001 to 22 December 2000, and removing the reporting senior (RS)‘s section I comment: “This report was drafted and resubmitted to replace a previously submitted report lost in the administrative mailing process.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 August 2003. In...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06600-02
consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Finally, as they did not find the RO comments to be adverse, they found no requirement that they be referred any event, they noted that the applicable fitness report order, Marine Corps Order P did not expressly prohibit RO (as opposed to reporting senior) comments that reflect praise. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08080-02
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 12 September 2002, and two memoranda for the record, dated 16 October and 20 November 2002, copies of which are attached. letter from him to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and endorsed by both reporting officials. rmance Evaluation Review Board Personnel Management Division Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department By direction of the Commandant of the Marine...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05074-02
Your allegations of error and injustice A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 3 June 2002, a copy of which is attached. 8 o MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06123-02
Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) has directed that the report for 12 July 1997 to 31 July 1998 be modified by removing the “Exercises acceptable judgment and following from the reporting senior (RS) comments: leadership.” Petitioner further requested removal of his failure of selection before the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, so that he will be considered by the selection board next convened to consider officers of his...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07475-06
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 16 August 2006, a copy of which is attached. Concerning the contested report for 1 August 2001 to 31 May 2002, the Board found the reviewing officer (RQ) was not required to make a promotion recommendation, so its absence did not render the report adverse. The petitioner contends that the reports are inaccurate and unjust because the reporting senior and reviewing...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04368-01
request for the By enclosure 3. a copy of the Advisory Opinion contained at (3), this Headquarters provide encl ith Review Branch Personnel Management Division By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY ,._iDQUARTERS UNITLD STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROAD QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB 2 1 MAY 2001 From: To: Subj: CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) MC0 1610.11C Per the reference, 1. has reviewed allegations of error and...
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 | 08366-02
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modification of your fitness report for 18 April to 1 September 1998 by removing the last two sentences from the reviewing officer ’s comments. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 November 2002. Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISOR SERGEAN HE CASE OF STAFF USMC despite the difficulties...