Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03680-06
Original file (03680-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                  BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100



 Docket No: 3680-06
 1 November 2006
From:    Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:      Secretary of the Navy

 Ref:             (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
End:     (1) DD Form 149 dtd 30 Nov 05 w/encls
 (2)      HQMC NIt4ER/PERB memo dtd 26 Apr 06
(3)      Subject’s ltrs dtd 19 May and 14 Jul 06, each with ends
(4)      HQMC Mb memo dtd 9 Aug 06
(5)      Subject’s naval record
1.       Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected by removing the fitness report for 21 August 2002 to 17 January 2003 (copy in enclosure (1) at Tab A) and the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) counseling entry dated 16 February 2003 (copy in enclosure (1) at Tab B).
2.       The Board, consisting of Ms. LeBlanc and Messrs. Boyd and Grover, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 26 October 2006, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the limited corrective action indicated below should be taken of the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
3.       The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows:
a.       Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy.
         b.       The page 11 on which the contested entry appears also includes uncontested entries.
         c.       The contested fitness report makes two references to the contested page 11 6105 counseling entry: the section G.3 “Justification” states “[Petitioner] received a 6105 [article 6105, Marine Corps Separation Manual] counseling for the improper use of a Government computer,” and section I states “MRO [Marine reported on] received a 6105 for improper use of a government computer during this reporting period.”
         d.       In enclosure (2), the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) commented to the effect that the contested fitness report should stand. The PERB did not address Petitioner’s arguments that he should have had a chance to review the reviewing officer’s (RO’s) comments and that the adverse remarks in the contested report are vague. The RO’s comments, while derogatory, do not add new adverse material.
e.       In enclosure (3), Petitioner replied to the PERE report.
f.       In enclosure (4), the HQMC Manpower Information Operations, Manpower Management Information Systems Division commented to the effect that the page 11 entry should be removed as it did not state a deficiency, and the commander did not sign it.
CONCLUSION:

 Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of enclosures (2) and (4), the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting partial relief, specifically, removal of the page 11 entry and amendment of the fitness report to remove the references to the entry. The Board agrees with the PERB in finding the fitness report should not be removed completely. The Board finds the RO’s comments did not have to be referred to Petitioner as they added no new adverse material, and the Board does not find the narrative of the report to be vague. In view of the above, the Board directs the following limited corrective action:

RECOMMENDAT ION:


 a.       That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) entry dated 16 February 2003. This is to be accomplished by
 reconstructing the page 11 on which the entry appears, or completely obliterating the entry so it cannot be read, rather than merely lining through the entry.

 b.       The Petitioner’s fitness report for 21 August 2002 to 17 January 2003, signed by First Lieutenant T. J. Collins, United States Marine Corps and dated 17 January 2003, be amended as follows:
(1)      Section G.3: From “Justification,” remove “a 6105” so that the sentence in which this appears will read as follows: “[Petitioner] received counseling for the improper use of a Government computer.”
(2)      Section I: From “Directed Comments,” remove “MRO received a 6105 for” so that the sentence in which this appears will read as follows: “improper use of a government computer during this reporting period.”
c.       That any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to the Board’s recommendation be corrected, removed or completely expunged from Petitioner’s record and that no such entries or material be added to the record in the future.
d.       That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner’s naval record be returned to the Board, together with a copy of this Report of Proceedings, for retention in a confidential file maintained for such purpose, with no cross reference being made a part of Petitioner’s naval record.


e.       That the remainder of Petitioner’s request be denied.
4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(c)) it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above entitled matter.
 ROBERT D. ZSALMAN        JONATHAN S. RUSKIN
Recorder         Acting Recorder


 5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 72 3.6(e)) and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the authority of reference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.
         



         W. DEAN PFEIFFFER
 Executive Director




























Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12759-09

    Original file (12759-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by . d. Petitioner contends that the contested fitness report violates the applicable fitness report order, Marine Corps Order P1610.7F, in that it reflects “faint praise”; the marks reflect marginal performance without any corroboration in the narrative; the last two...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07475-06

    Original file (07475-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2002 | 07967-02

    Original file (07967-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure applicable naval record be corrected by removing his fitness report for 1 October 2000 to 3 1 July 2001, a copy of which is at Tab A to enclosure (1). fifth highest, in F.3 ( “setting the ” the reviewing officer ” the g. Petitioner provided a supporting letter dated 30 April 2002 (Tab E to enclosure (1)) from the RS who submitted the contested transfer fitness...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02803-07

    Original file (02803-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    He further requested removal of the fitness report for 20 November 1998 to 31 March 1999 (copy at Tab C in enclosure (1)). d. In enclosure (3), Petitioner added his request to remove the page 11 entry dated 24 March 1999. e. In enclosure (4), the HQMC PERB commented to the effect that the contested fitness report should stand. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing the service record page 11d (“Administrative Remarks (1070) 7”) entry dated 24 March 1999.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00605-06

    Original file (00605-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    By correspondence dated 14 November 2003 (copy at Tab B), Petitioner was advised that his selection by the CY 2003 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board had been revoked for unspecified “unprofessional conduct and poor judgment” exhibiting failure to maintain the high standards expected of a Marine Corps staff noncommissioned officer.e. Enclosure (7) documents that a member of the Board’s staff contacted the HQMC Enlisted Promotion Section and was informed that had Petitioner’s selection by the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 12164-08

    Original file (12164-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to.as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure {1}, with this Board requesting that his naval record be corrected by removing the fitness report for 1 November 2004 to 31 May 2005 (copy at Tab A) and modifying his Marine Corps Total Force System (MCTFS) data by deleting the weight control entries for 8 February 1997 to 22 March 2000 and 1 March to 25 July 2005 (copy at Tab B).. The Board substantially concurs...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR9172 13

    Original file (NR9172 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Petitioner provided a supporting statement from Sergeant S---, affirming that since he had reason to believe his girlfriend, whom he thought was pregnant with his child, was receiving threats from her ex-boyfriend who still had a key to her house, Petitioner could not have stopped him from driving himself without a “physical altercation.” Sergeant S---‘s statement further reflects that “[Petitioner’s] actions were that of a concerned Marine and were within [sic] good intent” and that “My...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08495-07

    Original file (08495-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    He may submit to HQMC (NMPR-2) a request for remedial consideration for promotion on the basis of the PERB action and the further action recommended by this Board, if it is approved.2. In enclosure (3) , Petitioner maintains that the RO’s letter fully justifies removing the report for 2 March to 30 June 2003.CONCLUSION:Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and notwithstanding enclosure (2), the Board finds an injustice warranting complete removal of the report for 2...

  • 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 | CY2010 | 09536-10

    Original file (09536-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 JSR Docket No. 1552 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 dtd 22 Apr 10 w/attachments (2) HQMC MMER/PERB memo dtd 27 Aug 10 (3) Subject's naval record ‘Li Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by modifying the fitness report for...