Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 05727-04
Original file (05727-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
         WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100        
                 
                  BJG
 Docket No: 5727-04
 13 August 2004
Dear
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.
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modification of the contested fitness report for 1 February to 25 March 2002 by deleting the following comment from section I: “A quiet and productive leader that shows steady improvement daily.”
Your request remove the fitness report for 27 March to 7 May 2002 was not considered, as the report does not appear in your Official Military Personnel File. Your request for retention consideration was not considered either, as you may obtain such consideration by applying to Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC).
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 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 HQMC Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 12 July 2004, 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 in concluding that complete removal of the contested fitness report for 1 February to 25 March 2002 was not warranted. In view of the above, your application for relief beyond that effected by CMC 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 PFEIFFER
Executive Director



Enclosure


















 ~23
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5 103

 IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/ PERB
 JUL 1 2 2004
MEMORANDUM 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 FIRST LIEUTENANT USMC

          Ref:     (a) lstLt        DD Form 149 of 20 Apr 04
 (b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-2
1.       Per MCO l610.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 7 July 2004 to consider First Lieutenant petition contained in reference (a)
 Removal of the fitness report for the period 20020201 to 20020325 (TD) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report. NOTE: Removal of the fitness report for the period 20020327 to 20020507 was also challenged; however, that performance evaluation is not currently a matter of official record at this Headquarters -
2.       The petitioner contends the report under consideration was submitted subsequent to the completion of his period of temporary addition duty (TAD) and that his accompishments were not included therein..
3.       In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that, with one minor exception, the report is both administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       Per the provisions of paragraph 3005 of reference (b), the report was correctly marked “not observed.” Although its preparation may have been untimely, lateness in and of itself does not invalidate a report. This is especially germane considering the “not observed” nature of the evaluation.
b.       The petitioner’s allegation that his accomplishments during the reporting period were not recorded is neither documented nor corroborated. Regardless, nothing of that nature is included in Section C of any “not observed” evaluation.



Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF FIRST
 USMC
c.       Given that the report is “not observed”, the Board finds the first sentence in Section I to be inappropriate. They do not, however, conclude that complete removal of the report is warranted or necessary. Instead, the Board has directed elimination of the following verbiage: “-A quiet and productive leader that shows steady improvement daily.”
4. The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report, as modified, should remain a part of First Lieutenant official military record. The limited corrective action identified in subparagraph 3c is considered sufficient.

5. The case is forwarded for final action.




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



















2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07980-08

    Original file (07980-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the contested fitness report. Having reviewed all the facts of record, the Board has directed that your naval record will be corrected by removing the following fitness report: Date of Report Reporting Senior Period of Report 16 January 2006 20050101 to 20051231 (AN) 2. By direction DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROAD QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103 1070 MIO SEP 8...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04072-00

    Original file (04072-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You again request that this fitness report be removed, and you add a new request for consideration by a special selection board for promotion to lieutenant colonel. petitioner alleges that senior officers, career counselors, and at least one monitor, him of fair consideration for command, promotion, and school selection. record and FYOl 0 and Subsequently, he Senior fitness requests removal of In our opinion, removing the petitioned report would have 3. significantly increased the...

  • 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 | CY2001 | 04319-00

    Original file (04319-00.pdf) 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. Deputy Director Personnel Management Division Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps DEPARTMENT OF THE HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES NAVY MARINE CORP S 3280RUSSELL ROA D QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1600 MMOA-4 18 Jul...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06678-06

    Original file (06678-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O370 -5100BJGDocket No: 6678-0617 November 2005This 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 removing the fitness reports for 1 June 2004 to 9 May 2005 and 9 May to 30 June 2005, as well as your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.It...

  • 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 | CY2001 | 05333-01

    Original file (05333-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 the Performance Evaluation Review Board Date of Keport Reporting Senior Period of Report 22 Jan 99 980801 to 981231 (CH) There will be inserted in your Naval record a memorandum in 2. review ailed + Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) to remove the Change of Reporting Senior Fitness Report for the period 980801 to 981231. equests...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07196-06

    Original file (07196-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    As reflected in enclosure (2), the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) has directed removing the contested section K’s and the word quiet,” and HQMC has modified the report for 1 August 1999 to 29 February 2000 to show “CAPT” (captain) vice “MAJ” (major) in section A, item i.e (grade). If Petitioner is correct that he did not receive a copy of the report when it was completed, the Board finds this would not be a material error warranting relief, as...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09555-09

    Original file (09555-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the contested fitness report for 25 November 2002 to 29 May 2003. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 2010. 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.

  • 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...