Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 05815-03
Original file (05815-03.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BJG
Docket No: 5815-03
21 August 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 21 August 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 advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps, dated 5 August 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 advisory opinion. 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,



 Enclosure


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5 103
EN REPLY REFER TO:
1600
MMOA-4
5 Aug 03
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    BCNR PETITION FOR MAJOR USMC
Ref:     (a) BCNR Request for Advisory Opinion in the case of
 1.       Recommend disapproval o  request for removal of
 his failure of selection.
2. Per the reference, we reviewed        record and petition. Maj iled selection from the in-zone on both the FY03 and FY04 USMC Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. Following his first failure of selection he successfully petitioned the BCNR to remove his failure of selection. equests removal of his failure of selection on the FY04 Board.

 3.       We believe the Transfer report dated 010601 to 020624 was not in record as it appeared before the FY04 Board. -took reasonable actions in an attempt to have the report completed and in his record before the board. The missing report is an Academic report covering his performance while a fellowship student at Tufts University. A states in his petition he sent a personal letter and a copy of the portion of the report completed by the Reporting Senior including the attached letter to the FY04 Board. The presence of his letter and this portion of the report clearly showed the board he was PME complete and had exercises diligence preparing his record for the board. The only part of the report that was missing from consideration was the Reviewing Officer’s comments and comparative assessment.
4.       In our opinion, the Reviewing Officer’s clear lack of direct observation, based on s duty assignment, and the generic nature of the Reviewing Officer’s comments combine to have little effect on overall record. Although the presence of the missing report would have marginally improved     record, more likely his failure of selection was caused by the following significant competitive concerns:
Subj:    BCNR PETITION FOR MAJOR - USMC
a.       MOS time in the Fleet Marine Force.
only served a limited amount of time in the Fleet Marine Force when compared to his peers being selected for promotions only served 14 months in a VMGR squadron as a pilot prior to 1998 and only 4 years total in a VMGR squadron. Compared to his peers who typically have about 9 years in a VMGR squadron his lack of MOS credibility is a significant competitive concern.
          b.       Limited Value & Distribution Comparisons.        ~
 Value and Distribution (not including his training reports) is one ranked above him and six below him. Although generally competitive, this comparison comes from two reports as a new Captain. From 1991 to 1998 the rankings on        :reports were all one of
         one.
         
         c.       PFT Scores. record contains low 1 class PFT scores. Most of his peers selected for promotion had higher first class PFT scores.
5.       In summary, the presence of the missing report would have marginally improved ~~UU~rd, but record contains other areas of significant competitive concern that more likely contributed to his failure of selection. In our opinion, it is definitely unlikely that should have been selected for promotion had the missing report been added to his record prior to the board. Therefore, we recommend disapproval of XXX        request for removal of his failure       of selection.
6. POC

Head, Officer Counseling and
                   Evaluation Section
                  Personnel Management Division
2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09834-02

    Original file (09834-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board, consisting of Messrs. Agresti, Mimer and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner ’s allegations’ of error and injustice on 18 December 2002, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. After Petitioner had failed of selection by the FY 2002 Captain Selection Board, the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board directed removal of a fitness report. Captai Captain bove-Zone...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 06066-03

    Original file (06066-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Review Board (PERB), dated 16 July 2003, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC Officer Counseling and Evaluation Section, Personnel Management Division dated 28 May 2003, copies of which are attached. viewed Major ailed 'record and and FY04 USMC equests selec In our opinion, removal of the petitioned report would 3. slightly enhance the strength of the record, but not enough to warrant removal of the failures of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 08224-98

    Original file (08224-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB in finding that no correction of your fitness report record was warranted. 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. Subsequently, he unsuccessfully petitioned the Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) for removal of the fitness report for the period 970125-970731 and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05329-01

    Original file (05329-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your last request was not considered, as you have not been selected for or promoted to lieutenant colonel. directed that your Naval record will be corrected by removing therefrom the following fitness report: Having reviewed all the facts of record, the Board has Date of Report Reportin gSenio r Period of Report 11 Apr 00 There will be inserted in your Naval record a memorandum in 2. Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) to record and e FY02 USMC remove the To He successfully...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06373-06

    Original file (06373-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Specifically concerning the contested section K of the fitness report for 2 September 2000 to 5 March 2001, the Board found the mark in section K.3, the second lowest of eight possible marks, did not require marking section K.2 (“Evaluation”) “Do Not Concur [with reporting senior].” The Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion from MMOA-4 in concluding your selection by the FY 2007 Major Selection Board would have been definitely unlikely, even if the correction directed by...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03198-07

    Original file (03198-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 noted that the corrections to your fitness report record, which were directed by the HQMC Performance Evaluation Review Board and not this Board, were not effected until after the FY 2008 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board had adjourned on 22 September 2006. Subsequently, he...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04368-01

    Original file (04368-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2003 | 03768-03

    Original file (03768-03.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    of 11931 to “ 1” of 39933; or if neither of these actions is possible, remove the original report; and remove the failures of selection by the FY 2003 and 2004 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your letter, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board’s files on your prior cases, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The modification of the report would increase the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06123-02

    Original file (06123-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2003 | 05737-03

    Original file (05737-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...