DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BJG
Docket No: 617-06
27 February 2006
Dear Sergeant
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 24 February 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 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. The Board noted that a signature purportedly yours does appear in
sections J.2 and K.6 of the contested fitness report. 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.
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 PFEIP~FER
Executive Director
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
JAN 19 2006
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 SERGEAN
Ref: (a) Sergeant D Form 149 of 23 Aug 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 4 January 2006 to consider Sergeant ~- s
petition contained in reference (a) . Removal of the fitness report for
the period 20040401 to 20040721 (CH) was requested. Reference (b) is
the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the
report.
2. The petitioner contends the report is unjust and
administratively incorrect because he was not counseled nor did he sign
the report. He also believes the report is erroneous because he was
neither charged nor prosecuted of any offense as a result of the
incident that was the basis for the adverse 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. Per paragraph 5001.3a(1) of reference (b), a report is rendered
adverse when the reporting senior marks block 6b when the MRO is the
subject of derogatory material received from outside of the reporting
chain or within the reporting chain above the RO level. In this case,
the adverse nature of the report centered around the petitioner’s
receipt of the page 11 counseling entry, using bad judgment in front of
junior Marines while off-duty. He does not provide any substantive
evidence to refute the validity of the page 11 counseling entry.
b. The petitioner was afforded the opportunity to make a rebuttal
statement, and in his statement he does not dispute the contents of the
report.
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY
OPINION ON BCNR APPLICA QN IN THE CASE OF
c. The petitioner does not provide any evidence that a failure to
counsel him played any part in the incident that resulted in the adverse
nature of the report. A review of the petitioner’s record shows that the
petitioner acknowledged the report and certified his rebuttal statement,
which mentions receiving counseling from his chain of command and his
minister.
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 | CY1999 | 01131-99
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 10 February 1999, a copy of which is attached. Per MCO 1610.11Bf the Performance Evaluation Review Board, ent, met on 4 February 1999 to consider with three membe Gunnery Sergeant Removal of the following fitness reports was requested: etition contained in reference (a). Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08392-06
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR C0RRECT~ON OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OOBJGDocket No:8392-0616 October 2006This 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 reports for 2 July 2002 to 4 April 2003 and 5 April to 29 August 2003.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07475-06
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 16 August 2006, a copy of which is attached. Concerning the contested report for 1 August 2001 to 31 May 2002, the Board found the reviewing officer (RQ) was not required to make a promotion recommendation, so its absence did not render the report adverse. The petitioner contends that the reports are inaccurate and unjust because the reporting senior and reviewing...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Thu Dec 28 08_34_06 CST 2000
Petitioner’s application which requests that the entry reflecting his nonjudicial punishment (NJP) of 30 August 1996 be removed from his official records. He received two adverse fitness reports during this period, from two different Reporting Seniors and Reviewing Officers. Petitioner’s Regimental Commander also Petitioner was found guilty of that offense b. Petitioner provides no basis for removal of the record of NJP.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01983-99
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 18 March 1999, a copy of which is attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05106-99
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 H E A D Q U A R T E R S U N I T E D S T A T E S M A R I N E C O R P S 3280 RUSSELL R O A D Q U A N T I C O , V I R G I N I A 22 134-5 1 0 3 IN R E P L Y R E F E R TO: 1610 MMER/PERB MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05777-06
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 | CY2006 | 06257-06
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 11 July 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 | CY2006 | 06678-06
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O370 -5100BJGDocket No: 6678-0617 November 2005This 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 reports for 1 June 2004 to 9 May 2005 and 9 May to 30 June 2005, as well as your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.It...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07166-01
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...