Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 05925-05
Original file (05925-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BJG
         Docket No: 0 5925-05
        19 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.
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 three—member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 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 PERB in concluding the contested fitness report, as amended, should stand. Accordingly, 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 that favorable action cannot be taken. the Board reconsider its decision upon 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 22134-5 103

                                                                                           IN REPLY REFER TO:
                                                                                                    1610
                                                                                                    MMER/PERB
                                                                                                   JUL 15 2005

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVIORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATI THE CASE OF
         
(b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-6
1.       Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
 with three members present, met on 29 June 2005 to conside ration
petition contained in reference (a). Removal of fitness report covering 19920222 to 19920731 (SA) was requested. Reference (h) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends that the report covering the period
 19920222 to 19920731 (SA) is unjust because the reviewing officer made derogatory comments, which rendered the report adverse. On 27 April 2005, the PERE reviewed the subject report and directed chat the reviewing officer comments be removed from the report. After the Board’s action, the petitioner contacted this Headquarters and requested that the Board rehear the case and consider removing the entire report from his record.
3.       In its proceedings on 29 June 2005, the Board concluded that the report 19920222 to 19920731 (SA) is administratively and procedurally correct as written and filed because the derogatory comments made by the reviewing officer have already been removed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       When the report was completed almost 13 years ago, the petitioner signed item 22 stating, “I have seen the section B marks and the section C comments.” Since item 22 was signed, the Board concluded that the petitioner believed the report was a fair evaluation of his performance.
b.       The petitioner does not challenge the truth and accuracy of the reporting senior’s evaluation. Therefore, the Board concluded that the reporting senior’s comments are accurate and just -



Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) THE CASE OF


4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that the contested fitness report, covering period
(SA), should remain a part official military record as


5.       The case is forwarded for final action.

                                                                       

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

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02427-03

    Original file (02427-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evalwntiorl Review Board (PERB), dated 18 March 2003, a copy of which is attached. Per MCO 1610.11C1 the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three me Staff Sergean Removal of the following fitness reports was requested: t, met on 12 March 2003 to consider etition contained in reference (a). The petitioner is correct in identifying that Report A incorrectly overlaps the period covered by Report...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01458-07

    Original file (01458-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:1458-079 March 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.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 13 May to 31 October 2005 by removing section K.4 (reviewing officer’s comments)A three-member...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06258-06

    Original file (06258-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 10 July 2006 with attachment, 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. Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS3280 RUSSELL ROADQUANT100, VIRGINIA...

  • 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 | CY2005 | 07875-05

    Original file (07875-05.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed changing the ending date of the uncontested fitness report for 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000 from 30 June 2000 to 12 February 2000. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 15 September 2005, a copy of which is attached. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 14 September 2005 to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05307-01

    Original file (05307-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removal of the contested fitness report for 1 November 1987 to 29 February 1988. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board 2001, a copy of which is attached. (3) The petitioner is incorrect in her statement it was the petitioner who First, concerning the failure of the Reporting Senior to annotate paternity leave in Report B. signed Item 22...

  • 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 | CY2007 | 04310-07

    Original file (04310-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OOBJGDocket No:4310-0714 June 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.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) hasdirected modifying the contested fitness report for 1 April 2004to 31 March 2005 by changing the ending date, from 31 March 2005to 27 April 2005; and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07306-05

    Original file (07306-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 30 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. When reviewing the petitioner’s case, the Board concluded that the report is a valid “extended” report. The overlapping...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08417-07

    Original file (08417-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested removing the fitness report for 1 June 2005 to 18 January 2006.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report by removing section K (reviewing officer marks and comments)A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 November 2007. Per MCD 1610 11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 29 August...