Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07306-05
Original file (07306-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 BJG
 Docket No: 7306-05
 16 November 2006

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.
You requested removing the fitness report for 1 April to 1 June 2003.
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed changing the beginning date of the uncontested fitness report for 1 April to 7 September 2003 from 1 April 2003 to 2 June 2003.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 November 2006. 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 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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB, noting that the contested report is not, as you assert, •a “not observed” report. Accordingly, your application for relief other than 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 PFEFFER
Executive Director


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

                                     IN REPLY REFER TO:
                                                                                           MMER/ PERB
                                                                                                  AUG 30 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

         DD Form 149 of 15 Apr 05
 (b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-9
1.       Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 24 August 2005 to consider XXXX petition contained in reference (a) . Removal of the fitness report for the period 20030401 to 20030601 (CH) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends the report should be removed because there is another fitness report that covers the same period on file. The petitioner’s request is supported by an advocacy letter from the reporting senior and the reviewing officer of the report.
3.       In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       When reviewing the petitioner’s case, the Board concluded that the report is a valid “extended” report. The petitioner was in the same unit, billet, and had the same reporting officials on the prior annual report.
b.       The overlapping report, 20030401 to 20030907 (CH), is an observed report by different reporting officials; the report is the correct follow-on. Since the petitioner was in the same unit and billet, the Board believes the report should have begun on 20030602 vice 20030401; therefore. the Board directed Manpower Management Support Branch (MMSB) to correct the date on this report.

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







Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
 USMC
        



         5.       The case is forwarded for final action.





Chairperson, Performance
Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Managment Division
 Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps


























2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10174-06

    Original file (10174-06.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. The Board found no indication that the petitioner served as a corporalSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OFduring the reporting periods. Therefore, the Board found that the reporting senior and reviewing officer...

  • 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 | CY2002 | 04197-02

    Original file (04197-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Report A - 990827 to 991231 (AN). Report C - 000630 to 001231 (AN). Evaluation Review Board, request for May 2002 to consider Staff removal of his fitness report for the period 010101 to 010209 Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive (CH).

  • 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 | CY2006 | 08393-06

    Original file (08393-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 29 August 2006, a copy of which is attached. In regard to the report covering the period 20020707 to 20030302 (TDi, the petitioner contends the report is inaccurate based on the reviewing officers non-concurrence with the reporting senior’s attribute markings. The Board concluded that Subj}: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10524-07

    Original file (10524-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 19 November 2007, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted wasinsufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Per paragraph 8007 of reference (b), CMC has the authority to correct fitness report records when documentary evidence...

  • 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03751-00

    Original file (03751-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed that the memorandum for the record be filed in your official record stating name, grade and title of the third sighting officer. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280RUSSELLROA D QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-510 3 TO: IN REPLY REFER 1610 MMER/PERB 2 4 MAY 2008 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Sub-i: Ref: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 06659-03

    Original file (06659-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modification of the contested fitness report for 1 February to 7 June 2000 by removing the following from section I: “Given proper guidance, able to effectively prioritize, and ensure tasks assigned attain desired end state.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 August 2003. In addition, the Board considered the report of the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07166-01

    Original file (07166-01.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removal of the contested fitness report for 1 January to 2 February 1996. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated 30 July 2002 with enclosures.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 concluding that no further correction to your fitness report record...