Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 05496-04
Original file (05496-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
         WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

                  BJG
 Docket No:5496-04
 5 August 2004





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.
You requested, in effect, that the fitness reports for 1 September 1998 to 1 May 1999 and 2 May to 30 June 1999 be modified by raising all observed marks by one box, or that the reports be removed. You further requested removal of your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year 2005 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 August 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 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 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 to lieutenant colonel. 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.

Although the Board voted not to amend your fitness report record, you may submit the reporting senior’s letter of 22 April 2004 to future selection boards.

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,








Enclosures




































DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
                                                      3280 RUSSELL ROAD
 QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 221 34-5 1 03        IN REPLY REFER TO:
          1610
                                                                                                             MMER/ PERB
                                                                                                             JUL 0 6 2006

MEMORANDUN FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS

 Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR
          Ref:     (a)      Majo r     DD Form 149 of 26 Apr 04
                  (b)      MCO P1610.7E

 End:     (1) CMC Advisory Opinion 1600 MMOA-4 of 13 May 04
1.       Per MCO l610.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 30 June 2004 to consider Major petition contained in reference (a) . He requested that all “appropriate adjustments” be made to the fitness reports identified below so they reflect the actual intent of the Reporting Senior:
a.       Report A — 19980901 to 19990501 (GC)
b.       Report B — 19990502 to 19990630 (TR)
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing the submission of both reports.
2.       The petitioner contends it was never the intention of the Reporting Senior for the two fitness reports at issue to have a relative value at processing of 80.00. Instead, he states this occurred due to the Reporting Senior’s misunderstanding of the system. To support his appeal, the petitioner furnishes a letter from the Reporting Senior (Colone l

3.       In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that both reports are administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       Per subparagraph 4006.3 (marking philosophy) of reference (b), the bar (as Colonel states in his letter) for graded attributes for a solid and commendable performing











Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PER B) ADVISOR Y OPINION ON BCN APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR

Marine was set at “B.” Reference (b) states in subparagraph 4006.3g: “The purpose of Sections D, E, F, and G is not to find fault, nor is it to puff-up competent individuals, but to objectively evaluate Marines on their own merits.” There is absolutely no evidence that Colonel did anything less than be objective when he completed the challenged fitness reports and assigned marks of “C” and “D.”

 b.       Appendix G of reference (b) clearly stated in the first iteration of reference (b), as it still does today, that the fitness report average, and the Reporting Senior’s relative value at the time of the report’s processing would be “a constant and once calculated, it would not change.” What would change, and does, is the number of total reports submitted by the Reporting Senior and the cumulative relative value. As Colonel states in his letter included with reference (a), the averages follow him and change over time. In fact, at the time of proc~ssing, Report A had a relative value of 80.00. As Colonel rote additional fitness reports on Marines in the grade of Captain, the relative value of the report increased to 83.64.
c.       The Board finds the petitioner’s comparison of the fitness repo ts tr issu~ with hli last epo t by Colonel unde he pre rious performance evaluation system to be completely without merit. There is simply no relevance between the two systems.
d.       The awarding of the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal (NMCCM) was for an all-inclusive period of two years, only one of which was covered by Reports A and B. Receipt of the NMCCM neither contradicts nor invalidates the two reports.
e.       As a final matter, the Board must state its position that it cannot and does not operate under the premise that administratively correct, procedurally complete, and timely filed performance evaluations should be modified or removed to enhance competitiveness. To do so would breach the integrity and viability of the entire performance evaluation system.
















2
Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR


4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness reports should remain a part official military as currently configured.

5.       The enclosure is furnished to assist in adjudicating Major equest for the removal of his failure of selection to the grade of Lieutenant Colonel.

6.       The case is forwarded for final action.




ColoneI, U.S. Marine Corps
Deputy Director
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

























3


Similar Decisions

  • 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 | CY2004 | 04234-04

    Original file (04234-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • 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 | CY2001 | 03811-01

    Original file (03811-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    If that action is not possible, then the petitioner (b) is the Reference \\ . " s the Reviewing Officer on those two reports, as he was Colonel that if Colone he would have so stated in his review. Further, we recommend that his request for a special selection board through BCNR be denied since he has not exhausted the appropriate administrative procedures for requesting a special selection board set forth in references (b) and (c) contact in this matter is Capt Head, Promotion...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07185-01

    Original file (07185-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Enclosure (2) is furnished to assist in By enclosure 3. a copy of the Advisory Opinion contained at enclosure (3), this Headquarters provided Majo ith Head, "Performance Evaluation Review Branch Personnel Management Division By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps 1610 MMER/PERB 23 kU6 20% From: Co To: Subj: CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) MC0 1610.11C MC 41 Per the reference, the Performance Evaluation Review Board 1. has reviewed allegations of error and injustice in your...

  • 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 | 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 | CY2001 | 06693-01

    Original file (06693-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    At the outset, the board observes that Colone was the proper Reporting Senior for Report A (so acknow when the petitioner si that Lieutenant Colone Section B marks and Section C comments has absolutely no grounding in fact. Report B was completed a little over two months after the end of ased his observation PI he still had daily 2 Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR USMC the reporting period is not...

  • 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...