DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BJG
Docket No: 7875-05
14 October 2005
SSGT USMC
Dear Staff Serganet
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 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.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14
October 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 September 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.
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 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 221 34-5 103
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/ PERB
SEP 15 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
Ref: (a) Sergeant DD Form 149 of 12 Mar 05
(b) MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-2
1. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with
three members present, met on 14 September 2005 to consider Sergeant
petition contained in reference (a). Removal of the fitness report for
the period covering 20000213 to 20000630 (AN) was requested. Reference
(b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the
report.
2. The petitioner contends the report should be removed because it
was submitted in error. He states that the period is already covered by
an observed report dated 19990701 to 20000630 (AR).
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. The Board concluded that the contested report is valid. However,
the overlapping report submitted by C ending date is incorrect. The
report ending date should be 20000212 on
report. Records indicate that transferred to Raleigh NC during the
February 2000 timeframe. Major correct in making the start date of the
petitioner’s report 20000213; this is when he assumed the role as
reporting senior. Records indicate that the petitioner and Major the
reporting senior, were drilling in Greensboro, NC from February 2000 to
June 2000.
b. Based on the evidence in the aforementioned paragraph, the Board
directed that the dates on the petitioner’s report covering 19990701 to
20000630 (AR) be changed to 19990701 to 20000212 (AR) . This action
will alleviate the issue of overlapping reports.
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 of Sergeant official
military record.
5. The case is forwarded for final action.
Chairperson, Performance
Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06258-06
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
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 | 07306-05
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 | 06201-07
After thorough review, the Board found that the petitioner was not in the unit described in section “A”, item 2c, for the fitness report covering the period 20060301 to 20060424 (FD). Regarding the fitness report covering the period 20060801 to 20061020 (CH), the Board found that the reporting senior andSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OFreviewing officer are the rightful reporting officials for the period covered...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03634-07
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-blOOBJGDocket No:3634-0710 May 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 removing the uncontested fitness report for 1 May to 25 October 2005 by removing section K (reviewing officer’s marks and comments).A...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10179-06
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the observed report for 10 September to 2 December 2005, which you wanted to be left in the record.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 December 2006. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 14 November 2006, a copy of which is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10524-07
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 | CY2003 | 02427-03
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 | 04310-07
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 | CY2001 | 04998-00
Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280RUSSELL ROA D QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22 134-5 103 IN REPLY REFER TO: 161 0 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF STAFF USMC SERGEAN (a) (b) SSgt. VIRGINIA 22134-5103 NAVY IN REPLY REFER TO: 107 0 .MI MEMORANDUM FOR...