Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 05913-05
Original file (05913-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


                  BJG
Docket No: 5913-05
 25 August 2005






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 25 August 2005. 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 15 July 2005, 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 PERE. 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,



W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
Enclosure





























DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103


                                    IN REPbY REFER TO:
                                                                                          MMER/PERB
                                                                                         JUL 15 2005
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORJ M ANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF

(a) DD Form 149 of 15 April 2005
 (b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-5
1.       Per MOO 1610.110, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 13 July 2005 to consider Staff contained in reference (a) . Replacement of the fitness report for the period 20040101 to 20040811 (TR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends that due to an administrative oversight, the wrong reporting senior evaluated him on the fitness report that is currently on file. He provides a revised report signed by the purported reporting senior. The reviewing officer is the same on both reports; he also signed the updated report included with this petition.
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.       After review of the record, the Board noticed that the reporting senior for the report that is currently on file wrote an annual report previously. This reporting senior neither submitted a change of reporting senior (OH) report, nor made comments to indicate any modification of the reporting chain.
b.       Besides the revised report, the petitioner does not provide any other substantive evidence to justify his request.
c.       The Board also noticed that the report on file and the revised report submitted by the petitioner are the exact same reports with the exception of the reporting senior.
 Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF

4. The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
          official military record.
5. The case is forwarded for final action.



Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02605-07

    Original file (02605-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:2605-076 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 for19 August 2005 to 21 April 2006 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 4 September 2006, by raising the marks in sections...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 05925-05

    Original file (05925-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:05925-0519 August 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.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 22 February to 31 July 1992 by removing the entire reviewing officer certification.A...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07287-05

    Original file (07287-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 23 August 2005, 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00933-06

    Original file (00933-06.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the uncontested “not observed” fitness report for 16 March to 1 June 2004. Per the reference, the Performance Evaluation Review Board has reviewed allegations of error and injustice in subject’s naval record and the following action is requested: a. That subject’s naval record be corrected by removing the following fitness report: Date of Report Reporting Senior Period of Report 29 June 2005 LtCol - 20040316 to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10192-06

    Original file (10192-06.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. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 8 November 2006 to consider ~~~~fl*LlItpetit1on contained in reference (a) Modification of the fitness report covering the period 20050423 to 20050911 (CH) was requested. Per paragraph 8007.2 of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08069-02

    Original file (08069-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In your current application, you again request removing the original report, but you also add a new request to replace it with a revised report the reporting senior has submitted for the pertinent period. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report. Nothing has been furnished with reference (a) that documents any factual errors associated with the fitness report - Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON...

  • 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 | CY2007 | 05791-07

    Original file (05791-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 19 June 2007, 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. Regarding the fitness report covering the period 20050401 to 20050629 (TR), the Board found that the petitioner does not provide...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06721-00

    Original file (06721-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    t for the period 960914 to 970710 (TR) was Removal of Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive requested. evidenced in the final paragraph of enclosure (6) to reference REPORTING SENIORS HERE WILL BE (a) (i.e., "FITNESS REPORTS. THE FITNESS REPORTS.").

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07291-05

    Original file (07291-05.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. Because of the requirement to comment on potential as well as their critical role inISubj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR ~ USMCsafeguarding the integrity of the PES, reviewing officer’s should make every...