Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03139-06
Original file (03139-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~1 00


 BJG
 Docket No: 3139-06
 2 March 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 that the original fitness report for 1 July to 20 December 2004 be removed and replaced by a revised report for the same period, in accordance with letters from the reporting senior (RS) and reviewing officer (RO) dated 28 and 10 May 2006, respectively. You further requested removing your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Active Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, on the basis that your record, as it was presented to that promotion board, included the contested original report, it did not include the revised report, and you allege it reflected identical RO marks and comments in the fitness reports for 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004 and 1 July to 20 December 2004.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 March 2007. 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 (HQMC) Performance
Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 23 October 2006, and the undated advisory opinion from the HQMC Career Management Team (CMT), copies of which are 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 and the advisory opinion from CMT. Since the Board found no defect in your record as it was presented to the FY 2007 Active Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, it had no basis to recommend removing your failure of selection by that promotion board. 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 remove the contested original fitness report or enter the revised report in your record, you may submit the revised report, together with the letters from the RS and RO, 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 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,






Enclosures


































DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO. VIRGINIA 221 34-5103



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

 Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PFRB) ADVISORY OPINION ON B C NR APPLI QN IN THE CASE OF

(a) Form 149 of 5 Jun 06
 (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 October 2006 to consider petition contained in reference (a) . Replacement of the fitness report for the period 20040701 to 20041220 (CD) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends that the report should be replaced with a revised report for the same period “due to unusual and very burdensome personal issues affecting the reporting senior at the time of the report.” He contends the reporting senior did not give sufficient attention and detail to the report. To support his request he provides advocacy letters from the reporting senior and reviewing officer.
3.       In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report us administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:

 a.       Per paragraph 8007.2 of reference (b), the Commandant of the Marine Corps, “. . . can approve a revised assessment of a Marine’s conduct or performance based entirely on facts about the Marine that were unknown when the original report was prepa r ed.” In this case, the Board concluded that reporting officials failed to offer any facts that were unknown about the petitioner’s performance when the report was completed. While the Board agreed that the reporting senior may have been somewhat distracted when he prepared the report because of personal reasons, they concluded that he properly documented the petitioner’s performance. The Board found the reporting senior’s comments to be detailed and supportive of his attribute markings’ .









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

They also found that the reporting senior provided section “I”’ comment s that were so detailed that he required an addendum page to document the petitioner’s laudable performance. Therefore, the Board concluded the reporting senior provided an accurate report.
b.       After reviewing the revised report, the Board concluded that the reporting senior does not offer any new facts in the report. The Board concluded that the reporting senior merely amplifies his comments in the original report.
c.       A review of the petitioner and reporting official’s letters revealed that the petitioner requested the reporting senior to revise his report after he had failed selection to Lieutenant Colonel.
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part of ficial military record.
5.       The case is forwarded for final action.





















2
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5 103

 IN REPLY REFER TO:

1600
CMT

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    RESERVE AFFAIRS DIVISION ADVISORY OPINION, APPLICATION; CASE OF
          Ref:     (a)      DD Form 149 dtd 10 Apr 06
                  (b)      BCNR request for advisory opinion of 4 May 06

 1.       Per reference (a) and (b), we have reviewed r equest to move him from the Above Zone to t          he In Zone for the FY S Active Reserve Lieutenant Colonel promotion board a lleges he was not selected on the FY0~ Active Reserve Lieutenant Colonel promotion board due to two fitness reports having identical section K marks and comments. We do not concur with his request due to the following:
a.       Acquire accusation that his fitness report section K marks and comments are identical is incorrect. Upon reviewing the two reports, the section K comments differ slightly. The marks are the same, but are in fact the highest he received since July 2000.
         

                  b.       A review of Master Brief Sheet (MBS) indicates that since October 1999, he was evaluated by his reporting seniors’ (RS) relative value as below average on 6 occasions, with their average on 1 occasion, and above average on 3 occasions. For his reviewing officers’ relative cumulative average, 126 officers have been rated below him, 165 with him, and 274 above him. Therefore, we believe his overall relative value assessments along with the keen competition within the Active Reserve program was the reason he was not selected to the next higher grade.


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06028-00

    Original file (06028-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    As reflected in enclosure record as he requested, but modified it by removing the following RS verbiage: qualified for promotion at this time but.. mark in item 19 from “NA” to “yes.” .” Also, as shown in enclosure (2), the HQMC PERB did not remove this report from Petitioner ’s “He is not (3), they changed the g* The fifth contested fitness report, for 28 June to 20 July 1985 (Tab E), from a third RS, also documents only that the following be deleted from the RS comments: Petitioner Is...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00164-02

    Original file (00164-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    As enclosure (2) reflects, after the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board had convened on 12 March Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) directed the requested corrections of Petitioner ’s performance record. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Kastner, Schultz and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner allegations of error and injustice on 8 August 2002, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the limited corrective action indicated below...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03672-98

    Original file (03672-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    He stated that since his fitness reports as a lieutenant and captain were sufficiently strong to allow him to have been promoted to major, and since his major reports are “far more competitive, ”the probability of promotion to lieutenant colonel “would be high.” Regarding his fitness report for 15 November 1985 to 28 February 1986, he stated that although it is an “annual” report, it covers only three months, during which the actual observation was only four to six calendar days. In their...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01229-09

    Original file (01229-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures (except enclosure (2)), naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The Board finds Petitioner’s FY 2009 and 2010 failures should be removed as well, since the marks cited above were in his record for both of the promotion boards concerned, and removing all failures is necessary to restore Petitioner to the status he enjoyed, before the FY 2008 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, as an officer who...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07196-06

    Original file (07196-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    As reflected in enclosure (2), the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) has directed removing the contested section K’s and the word quiet,” and HQMC has modified the report for 1 August 1999 to 29 February 2000 to show “CAPT” (captain) vice “MAJ” (major) in section A, item i.e (grade). If Petitioner is correct that he did not receive a copy of the report when it was completed, the Board finds this would not be a material error warranting relief, as...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05822-01

    Original file (05822-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    d. Enclosure (4) is the advisory opinion from the HQMC Career Management Team (CMT) recommending denial of Petitioner ’s request to remove his failure of selection before the FY 2002 Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. [Petitioner ’s] overall record is less than competitive when compared with his peers. directed that your Naval record will be corrected by removing therefrom the following fitness report: Having reviewed all the facts of record, the Board has Date of Report Reporting...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06678-06

    Original file (06678-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2002 | 10443-02

    Original file (10443-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    In correspondence attached as enclosure (4), the HQMC Career Management Team (CMT), the office having cognizance over the subject matter of Petitioner her failures of selection for promotion, has commented to the effect that this request would warrant approval if the entire fitness report in question were to be removed. Chairperson, Performance Evaluation Review Board Personnel Management Division Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department By direction of the Commandant of the Marine...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 10223-05

    Original file (10223-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:10223-0516 April 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 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06373-06

    Original file (06373-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Specifically concerning the contested section K of the fitness report for 2 September 2000 to 5 March 2001, the Board found the mark in section K.3, the second lowest of eight possible marks, did not require marking section K.2 (“Evaluation”) “Do Not Concur [with reporting senior].” The Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion from MMOA-4 in concluding your selection by the FY 2007 Major Selection Board would have been definitely unlikely, even if the correction directed by...