Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02655-06
Original file (02655-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

         BJG
Docket No: 2655-06
3 November 2006



This s 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 thr e e-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records , sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 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 you: 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 20 March 2006, a copy of which is attach e d.
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 r injustice. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB.
The Boa rd noted you could not have been counseled about matters that Ii .d not yet come to light. The Board was unable to find you ne v er received a formal billet description. The Board was unable to find the reporting officials did not take due account
 of th e input you provided for use in your fitness report, nor could it find that any of your achievements not mentioned in the report were of such significance that they should have been acknowledged expressly. You failed to persuade the Board that the r porting officials made any false statements. Finally, while the contested report’s late submission is not condoned, the B o ard was unable to find this invalidated it.
In vi e w 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 B o ard reconsider its decision upon submission of new and mater al evidence or other matter not previously considered by the B o ard. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a pre s umption 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 exist e nce of probable material error or injustice.





Sincerely,



W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director










Enclo s ure
 •       
















         DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
          HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
         QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22i34~5 103        




         IN REPLY REFER TO:
         

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
         (a) DD F orm 149 Of 13 Oct 05
 (b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Ch li9
1.       P e r MCO 1610.llc, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with t hree members present, met on 8 March 2006 to consider contained in reference (a) Removal of the fitness report for the period 20040801 to 20041105 (FD) as requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directs lye governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends the report should be removed because it is unjust and inaccurate. He contends the report is not an
accurate assessment of his overall performance because reporting officials were not objective and based their evaluation and comminutes solely on personal beliefs and biases.
3.       I its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is
procedurally correct and administratively complete as written and filed The following is offered as relevant:
a Per paragraph 1005.3 and 4 of reference (b), personal biases , have absolutely no place in the evaluation process. Furth r, reporting officials must evaluate and measure Marines again~ t known Marine Corps values and soldierly virtues, not again~ t a personal set of precepts and unreasonable expectations. In the case, the reporting senior’s primary reason for rendering the port adverse was based on the belief that the petitioner lied ~bout the severity of his marital problems, which resulted in hi s being sent back to the states early from supporting OIF. The pe titioner does not provide any substantive evidence to prove that there was bias on the part of either reporting official.








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


I.       Per paragraph l003.lb of reference (b), evaluations must focus on individual performance during a designated period of ostentation . In this case, the petitioner’s claims that this info rm ation was brought up after the reporting period and therefore should not have been made a part of the evaluation is not a valid argument. The Board found that the reviewing offic e r’s consents regarding his conclusion that the petitioner had exaggerated his marital problems and his discovery that there was a hostile work environment for subordinates who worked under the petitioner were relevant to the petitioner’s perfo r mance and actions while in theater and during the reporting perio d . The Board further concluded that the petitioner did not provide substantive evidence to dispute the false pretense claim of th reviewing officer relative to the marital problems. Final y, The Board concluded that the petitioner did not provide suffi c ient evidence to dispute the hostile work environment comme n t. In his rebuttal, the petitioner simply states “RS and RO are basing the performance of MRO on information gathered after the reporting period had ended.”
4.       T e Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
 vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part

5. T h e case is forwarded for final action



Chairperson, Perf ormance
Evaluation Review Bo ard
 M anageme nt Division
 Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 06069-03

    Original file (06069-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 August 2003. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. While you are correct that your record reflects no counseling entry about the incident cited in the contested fitness report, the Board was unable to were not counseled about the incident, noting that the third sighting...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01983-99

    Original file (01983-99.pdf) 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 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 | CY2007 | 08531-07

    Original file (08531-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 14 September 2007, 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 ROADQUANTICO, VA 221 34~51O3 IN REPLY...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00035-99

    Original file (00035-99.pdf) 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 23 December 1998, a copy of which is attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01130-01

    Original file (01130-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified your contested fitness report for 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000 to reflect that you were the subject of commendatory material. 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 does not find that this omission invalidates an otherwise completely...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09708-06

    Original file (09708-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 26 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 insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 18 October 2006 to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08533-06

    Original file (08533-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), the HQMC PERB has commented to the effect that the PERB found the RS had violated the principles that personal biases have no place in the evaluation process and that narrative portions of fitness reports must be clear and unambiguous. However, the PERB concluded that the contested report, without the comments whose removal was directed, “is administratively correct.”CONCLUSION:Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07142-01

    Original file (07142-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 6 September 2001, and the PERB chairperson electronic mail dated 3 October 2001, copies of which are attached. As each fitness report is for a specific period, your having received a more favorable report for the immediately preceding period, from the same reporting senior for your performance of the same job, did not convince them that the contested report was...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10858-06

    Original file (10858-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.2. Concerning the petitioner’s allegation that this report is biased because he requested mast, the Board could find no evidence to support his contention.c.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05641-99

    Original file (05641-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has returned your contested fitness report for 2 July 1997 to 8 May 1998 to your reviewng officer for completion of his certification. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB. \'tw\;\cd Subj : MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVIS CAPTA THE CASE OF SMC 4.