Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07291-05
Original file (07291-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2NAVYANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 BJG
 Docket No:       7291-05
 28 September 2005













Dear Maj
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 that a reviewing officer’s observation need not be direct. 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,


I
 Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103    IN REPLY REFER TO:

 1610
 NIL4ER/ PERB
AUG 23 2005

 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 MAJOR
          Ref:     (a)      ‘ D Form 149 of 1 June 2005
 (b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-4

1.       Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 17 August 2005 to consider Major petition contained in reference (a). Modification of his fitness report for the period 20030119 to 20030731 (CH) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
~.       The petitioner contends that the report covering the period 20030119 to 20030731 (CH) is unjust because the comparative assessment markings and section K-4 are unjust, procedurally flawed and inaccurate. He further argues that the reviewing officer never met him and suggests that the reviewing officer did not have sufficient observation of his performance. In his petition, he suggests that the reviewing officer should have marked insufficient observation in Section K of the report.
3.       In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the report covering the period 20030119 to 20030731 (CH) is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       After thorough review of the comparative assessment markings, the Board finds no evidence that the markings and comments do not accurately reflect the petitioner’s performance during the reporting period.
b.       The petitioner provides no corroboration or substantiation that the reviewing officer did not know him and was not aware of his efforts and achievements. Paragraph 4014.2 of reference (b) states “There are no hard guidelines on what constitutes sufficient knowledge and observation. Because of the requirement to comment on potential as well as their critical role in
 I
 Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR ~ USMC
safeguarding the integrity of the PES, reviewing officer’s should make every effort to come to know the Marines whose reports they will review.” The petitioner offers no proof the reviewing officer did not follow the spirit and intent of this tenant of the PES and diligently exercise his reviewing officer responsibilities.

 c.       The Board reviewed the advocacy letters submitted by the petitioner. The advocacy letters provided by the petitioner do not specifically challenge the reviewing officer’s execution of responsibilities and opinions. The letters offer their general perspectives based on their contact with the petitioner; they are not from the perspective of a fitness report reviewing officer of record.
d.       The Board also reviewed the petitioner’s awards submitted with his petition. The petitioner’s receipt of the Navy Marine Corps Achievement Medal and the British Legion of Merit was recognized in the reporting senior’s evaluation, and the reviewing officer concurred with the report attesting to this fact. The Army Commendation Medal was issued a month after the report was completed and signed, and there is no indication either reporting official had prior knowledge of its preparation. Therefore, the Board believes that reporting officials properly documented the petitioner’ s awards.
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret
 ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report, cover
20030119 to 20030731 (CH) , should remain a part
icial military record.

 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 | CY2006 | 03848-06

    Original file (03848-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You now request that this section K be modified, in accordance with the RO’s letter dated 15 February 2006, to reflect that the RO had “insufficient” observation to assess your performance.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 August 2007. The petitioner offers an advocacy letter from the reviewing officer which requests that the report now be marked “insufficient observation” vice “sufficient...

  • 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 | CY2006 | 10190-06

    Original file (10190-06.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 the provisions of paragraph 8007.2 of reference (b), the Commandant of the Marine Corps, ... “can approve a revised assessment of a Marine’s conduct or performance based entirely on facts about the Marine that were unknown when the original report was prepared.” In this case, the Board...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01098-07

    Original file (01098-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 203705100BJGDocket No:1098-071 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.You requested, in effect, that the fitness reports for 31 (sic) September 2001 to 10 March 2002 and 11 March to 30 June 2002 be modified, in accordance with the reviewing officer’s (RO’s) letter dated 11 August...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10085-06

    Original file (10085-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You also requested that the report for 1 April to 23 August 2004 be modified, in accordance with the reviewing officer’s (RO’s) letter dated 3 January 2006, by raising the mark in section K.3 (RO’s “Comparative Assessment”) from the lowest of eight possible to the third best.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 December 2006. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments...

  • 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 | CY2007 | 04966-07

    Original file (04966-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 25 May 2007, a copy of which is attached. In regard to the fitness report covering the period 20050414 to 20051210 (FD), the Board found that per paragraphSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF8007.3 of reference (b), reporting officials may add supplemental material after the facts, and as...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08818-06

    Original file (08818-06.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. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 2 October 2006, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was...

  • 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 | CY2006 | 11025-06

    Original file (11025-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The board also found the reviewing officer gave credence to the observed evaluation when he concurred with the reporting senior’s report and offered an appraisal of his own.Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF Concerning the fitness report covering the period 20040601 to 20040704 (TD), covering 34 days, the Board found that the reporting senior, LtCol H---, extended the annual report that he completed in the...