Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07287-05
Original file (07287-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS


I
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

BJG
Docket No:       7287-05
28 September 2005





~USMCR







Dear Capta

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 28 September 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 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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB, noting you did not specify how the late submission of the contested fitness report impaired your ability to respond effectively. 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,



1%
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280 RUSSELL ROAD

I)
         QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103    IN REPLY REFER TO:
                 
1610
                  NNER/ PERB
         AUG      2        :3       2tJ5

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
         ~
         Ref:     (a) Captain      Form 149 of 12 May 2005
(b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-2

1.       Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 10 August 2005 to consider Captain ition contained in reference (a) . Removal of the fitness report for the period 20011201 to 20020117 (DC) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.       The petitioner contends the report is erroneous and administratively inaccurate. He also states that the report was submitted late and that the third officer sighter fails to adjudicate inconsistencies and disagreements between the reviewing officer and the petitioner.

3.       In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is administratively and procedurally correct as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:

a.       The Board noticed that the petitioner did not provide an advocacy statement to support his allegations nor did he provide any substantive evidence to refute the accuracy of the report.
I
b.       Paragraph 8010 of reference (b), states that late submission of fitness reports is unacceptable; however, it does not render it invalid. Therefore, the Board does not believe that the report should be expunged from the petitioner’s record because ~t was late.

c.       Paragraph 5005.3 of reference (b) states that the third officer sighter must take action to resolve any inconsistencies ano. disagreements when the Marine Reported On (MRO) statement disagrees with the reviewing officer’s statement as to matters of
Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF CAPTA ~ USMC

fact. In this case, the third officer sighter does not address one item that relates to the petitioner attending an “Anger Management” class. The petitioner claims that he knew nothing about this, while the reviewing officer states he was scheduled to attend. The Board believes this issue is minor in nature and the underlying adversity of the report revolves around the petitioner’s ability to lead. In this area, the reviewing officer does an excellent job of addressing the difference between what the reporting senior and petitioner’s statements.

4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness reports should remain a part of Captain ficial military record as filed.

5.       The case is forwarded for final action.
         J~       i, u.s.  rine 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 | CY2007 | 02602-07

    Original file (02602-07.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. The petitioner contends the adversity of the report was based on hearsay statements of 15 students; he received no formal counseling from the reporting senior; he implies the report is improper, since it was returned by the third officer sighter for correction; and the report is unwarranted...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09135-07

    Original file (09135-07.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 addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERE), dated 21 September 2007, a copy of which is attached, and your letter dated 28 October 2007.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10975-06

    Original file (10975-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the reports.2. Concerning the fitness report covering the period 20040701 to 20040909 (DC), per paragraph 1005 of reference (b), reporting senior’s are prohibited from using the report as a disciplinary or counseling tool. In regard to the report covering the period 20040910 to 20050625 (TR), the Board found that it does not appear that the petitioner was at a disadvantage nor is there any evidence to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06583-08

    Original file (06583-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 July 2008. your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The Board found the reviewing officer took timely action on the contested fitness report, signing it on 22 July 2003. He notes procedural errors in the completion and submission of this...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11165-06

    Original file (11165-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:11165-0623 January 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 1 January to 5 February 2002 by changing section K.6 to show you did not attach a statement...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01668-07

    Original file (01668-07.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 paragraph 2010.5 of reference (b), when the reporting senior is relieved for cause, the reviewing officer is required to take over the evaluation responsibilities. In this case, the Board found that after relieving the reporting senior, the reviewing officer felt he had sufficient...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09116-08

    Original file (09116-08.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. 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. The RO states that although there are inconsistencies between the RS’ comments and the petitioner's rebuttal, “what...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05777-06

    Original file (05777-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Per MCO l610.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 21 June 2006 to consider Gunnery Sergeant XXXX petition contained in reference (a).Removal of the fitness report for the period 20040609 to 20041015 (TD) was requested. He feels that the reporting senior was personally biased and unfair in the evaluation after filing sexual assault charges against him. The Board also believed that the third officer sighter did a thorough job of putting the entire...

  • 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 | CY2001 | 06830-01

    Original file (06830-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 28 August 2001, a copy of which is attached. the rights afforded him under reference (b), that there are several items of inaccurate information, submitted in a timely manner, on the adverse material added by the Reviewing Officer following his rebuttal, and that the report contains unauthorized addendum pages. with the circumstances an Lance Corporal discussed...