Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 10223-05
Original file (10223-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100



 BJG
 Docket No:10223-05
 16 April 2007





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, in effect, that the fitness report for
1 October 2000 to 31 May 2001 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 3 January 2005, by raising the marks in sections E.2 (“effectiveness under stress”), E.3 (“initiative”) and G.3 (“judgment”) from “D” (fourth best of seven possible marks) to “E” (third best); and that the report be modified further, in accordance with the reviewing officer’s (RO’s) letter dated 30 January 2006, by raising the mark in section K.3 (RO’s “comparative assessment”) from the fourth best of eight possible marks to the third best. You also requested that the fitness report for 1 June to 26 October 2001 be modified, in accordance with the RS’s letter, by making the same changes to sections E.2, E.3 and G.3; and that the report be modified further, in accordance with the RO’s letter, by raising the mark in section K.3 from the fourth best to the second best. After you had submitted your application, you failed of selection by the Fiscal Year 2007 and 2008 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards. It is presumed you desire removal of your failures of selection for promotion.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 April 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 reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 28 November 2005 and 13 July 2006, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC Officer Counseling and Evaluation Section, Personnel Management Division (NMOA-4), dated 24 January 2006, copies of which are attached. The Board also considered your letters dated 12 January 2006 with enclosures, 20 February 2006 with enclosure and 8 March 2007.




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 reports of the PERE. Since the Board found no defect in your performance record, it had no grounds to recommend removing either of your failures of selection to lieutenant colonel. In view of the above, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

Although the Board voted not to modify either of the fitness reports in question, you may submit the RS’s and RO’s letters to future selection boards.

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 %n 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,











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

                  IN REPLY REFER TO:
          1610
         NJNIER/ PERB
         NOV

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS

 Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) AD VI S ORY OPINION CNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF


1.       Per MCO 16l0.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 16 November 2005 to consider contained in reference (a) of fitness reports for the periods covering 20001001 to 20010531 (CD) and 20010601 to 20011026 (CH) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner is requesting to have three attributes changed on each report from “D” to “E”. The reporting senior, the same on both reports, supports this change by stating i n his advocacy letter, “. . . my intent was to ~ ong my top performers” and, “These changes will better reflect his overall performance as it relates to my cumulative average for reports written on 0-4s.”
3.       In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the reports are administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       Paragraph 8007.2 of reference (b), allows for substantive corrections to fitness reports already a matter of record. Corrections must be “based entirely on facts about the Marines that were unknown when the original report was prepared.” The reporting senior offers no concrete facts as to what about the petitioner’s performance was overlooked or unknown when both reports were submitted five years ago that would now justify upgrading six attributes, three on each report. His request for change is solely on the mathematics of his reporting senior’s profile and is contrary to the spirit and intent of reference (b).
         b.       A Marine is evaluated during a finite reporting period based on billet description, billet accomplishments, and exhibited efforts and results; not on how he or she compares with other Marines of the same grade. Per the provision of paragraph 4006.3 of reference (b) on attribute marking philosophy: “All Marines grow personally and professionally, but each does so within the bounds of personal ability. The Marine, by individual performance over the course of a career, develops a record on his or her own merit. The purpose of section D, E, F, and 0 (attribute markings) is not to find fault, nor is it to puff-up competent individuals, but to objectively evaluate Marines on their own merits.” Based on the aforementioned reference, the Board concluded that the petitioner should be evaluated against definitive degrees of performance for the period of the report and not against a reporting senior’s cumulative relative value or other Marines of the same grade.
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness reports, covering the periods 20001001 to 20010531 (CD) and 20010601 to 20011026 (CH) , should
 remain a part o fficial military record as current T D Y written and filed.
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










Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02818-07

    Original file (02818-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 20 March 2007, a copy of which is attached. the Marine that were not known when the original report was prepared.” The Board found that the reporting senior’s advocacy letter does not explain how the five attribute marks of “D” are inaccurate and in error. The reviewing officer’s letter offers no explanation of what specifically about the petitioner’s performance...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05658-07

    Original file (05658-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370~s 100BJGDocket No:05658-0720 July 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 for 4 June 2005 to 30 June 2006 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior (RS) ‘s letter dated 17 Nay 2007, by raising the marks in sections D.l...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10192-06

    Original file (10192-06.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 MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 8 November 2006 to consider ~~~~fl*LlItpetit1on contained in reference (a) Modification of the fitness report covering the period 20050423 to 20050911 (CH) was requested. Per paragraph 8007.2 of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03521-09

    Original file (03521-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, in only 60 days since the end of his last reporting period, I cannot say that he has moved up in his peer ranking.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 June 2009. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 1 April 2009, a copy of which is attached. Removal of the fitness reports for the periods 19990101...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06125-09

    Original file (06125-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    best) to “D.” oO A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 August 2009. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08554-09

    Original file (08554-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board further concurred with the advisory opinion in = concluding your selection by the FY 2010 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board would have been definitely unlikely, even if your record had not included the fitness report CMC has directed removing. request, a Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report for i July 2005 to 21 June 2006, you may submit the RS’s letter and the RO’s endorsement to future selection boards. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07208-06

    Original file (07208-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 2 August 2006 to consider Lieutenant Colon ‘ petition contained in reference (a). He provides an advocacy letter from the reporting senior that states, “these changes will better reflect his (MRO’s) overall performance as it relates to my cumulative average on reports written on majors.” He also requests that seven attribute markings be changed on the fitness report covering the period 20020611 to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00625-06

    Original file (00625-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 19 January 2006, 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. consequently,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11717-09

    Original file (11717-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 March 2010. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10218-06

    Original file (10218-06.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 reporting senior is to also ensure these comments neither conflict or obscure the remainder Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) of the evaluation. The Board found that the section “I” comments do not conflict with the attribute markings and are in accordance...