Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 04234-04
Original file (04234-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                             2NAVYANNEX
          WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

         BJG
         Docket No: 4243-04
          29 July 2004

 Dear Maj
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 29 July 2004. 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 (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 17 May 2004, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC Officer Counseling and Evaluation Section, Personnel Management Division, dated 2 April 2004, copies of which are 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. Since the Board found no defect in your performance record, it had no grounds to recommend removing your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year 2005 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. 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,


                                                                        W. DEAN PFIEFFER



Enclosures
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
         QUANTICO VIRGINIA 22134-5103
                 IN REPLY REFER TO:

                                                                                           1610
                                                                                          MMER/ PERB
         


MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION A PPLICATION IN THE CASE OF. MAJOR
          USMC
         Ref:     (a) Major         DD Form 149 of 14 Feb 04
                   (b)      MCO Pl6lQ.7E
         End:     (1)      CMC Advisory Opinion 1600 MMOA-4 of 2 Apr 04

 1.       Per MCO l6lO.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, .     three members present, met on 12 May 2004 to consider Major petition contained in reference (a) . Removal of the
 fitness report for the period 19980801 to 19990514 (TR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends the report is not an accurate . depiction of his performance during the stated period. He believes that if the Reporting Senior had been permitted to provide a “we d picture” in Section 1 of the report, those comments would have greatly impacted the o ~era11 tenor of the evaluation. The petitioner also points out this was the first and only report written by Lieutenant Colonel and that he was unfamiliar with the new paradigm created under the current performance evaluation system. Finally, the petitioner alleges that Colonel letter of 14 February 2004 (enclosure (3) to his statement included with reference (a)) does not support a cumulative value of 80.
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.       Regardless of what became effective subsequent to the publication of reference (b), the fact remains that until October 1999 Reporting Seniors were not permitted to include a “word picture” in Section I of the fitness report form. Therefore, any impact such comments might have had on the


Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR
          USMC

 overall tenor of the fitness report at issue is simply not germane.
         b.       Colonel  letter of 14 February 2004 is not a
 repudiation of his evaluation contained in the challenged fitness report. Rather, it is an explanation of the facts, and places those facts into perspective in relation to the preparation of the appraisal. Nothing in Colonel’ memorandum contradicts the validity of the report; nor does he indicate he prepared or submitted the report contrary to the spirit and intent of reference (b).

 c.       There is nothing contradictory about the relative value at processing and the cumulative relative value depicted for the report on the petitioner’s Master Brief Sheet. At the time the report was submitted, it was the lowest report average of the three reports prepared by Colonel on officers in the grade of Major. Now, after Colonel as completed seven reports on Majors, it is still the lowest report average. This in no way implies, or can validly be interpreted, that the petitioner performed in anything other than a completely satisfactory manner. Even with the newness of reference (b), it is apparent the Reporting Senior was able to distinguish between the relahve degree of accomplishment of the three Majors under his reporting responsibility.
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part of  ‘ official military record.
5 The enclosure is furnished to assist in resolving Major request for the removal of his failure of selection
to the grade of Lieutenant Colonel.
6. The case is forwarded for final action.




 Marine Corps
 Deputy Director
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps








Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 05496-04

    Original file (05496-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 6 July 2004, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC Officer Counseling and Evaluation Section, Personnel Management Division, dated 13 May 2004, copies of which are 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 materialerror or...

  • 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 | CY2002 | 07330-02

    Original file (07330-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    atbched as enclosure CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the contents of enclosure (3), the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting limited relief, specifically, removal of Petitioner ’s failure of selection for promotion. That Petitioner’s record be corrected so that he will be considered by the earliest possible selection board convened to consider officers of his category for promotion to lieutenant colonel as...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03139-06

    Original file (03139-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You further requested removing your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Active Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, on the basis that your record, as it was presented to that promotion board, included the contested original report, it did not include the revised report, and you allege it reflected identical RO marks and comments in the fitness reports for 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004 and 1 July to 20 December 2004. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted...

  • 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 | CY2002 | 00164-02

    Original file (00164-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    As enclosure (2) reflects, after the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board had convened on 12 March Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) directed the requested corrections of Petitioner ’s performance record. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Kastner, Schultz and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner allegations of error and injustice on 8 August 2002, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the limited corrective action indicated below...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 10223-05

    Original file (10223-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:10223-0516 April 2007This 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.You requested, in effect, that the fitness report for 1 October 2000 to 31 May 2001 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 3 January 2005, by raising the marks in sections...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10033-06

    Original file (10033-06.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. In regard to the reporting senior changing his grading philosophy, the Board concluded it is immaterial. In the spirit and intent of reference (b), where a reporting senior evaluates a Marine’s performance, he should not assign grades to meet some preconceived fitness report average.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09788-09

    Original file (09788-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    In enclosure (3), MMOA-4, the HOMC Officer Counseling and Evaluation Section, commented to the effect that Petitioner's failures of selection to lieutenant colonel should not be removed, notwithstanding the PERB action, in view of the noncompetitive cumulative relative values in his fitness reports as a major, as well as a fitness report date gap. Notwithstanding enclosure (3), the Board finds Petitioner’s failures of selection to lieutenant colonel should be removed as well. b, That his...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07532-01

    Original file (07532-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 Enclosures DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV Y HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROAD OUANTICO, VIRGINIA 221 34-51 03 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB 2001 2 +, SEP MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE CORPS...