Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03848-06
Original file (03848-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


 BJG
 Docket No:3848-06
 10 August 2007




This is in reference to your letter dated 17 April 2006 with enclosures, seeking reconsideration of your previous application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552. Your previous case, docket number 7291-05, in which you requested removing section K (reviewing officer (RO) marks and comments) from the fitness report for 19 January to 31 July 2003, was denied on 28 September 2005. You now request that this section K be modified, in accordance with the RO’s letter dated 15 February 2006, to reflect that the RO had “insufficient” observation to assess your performance.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 August 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 current application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board’s file on your prior case, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the report furnished by the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 18 August 2006, a copy of which is attached. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated 16 November 2006 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 this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB. The RO’s letter and the commendatory material and supporting statements with your letter of 16 November 2006 did not persuade the Board that the disputed section K should have been more favorable, or that it should have been marked to show the RO had “insufficient” observation. In view of the above, the Board again voted to deny relief. 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 PFEIFFER
                                                                        Executive D irector






Enclosure


























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

                                                                                                    IN REFER TO:
                                                                                                            MMER/ PERB

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 Form 149 of 17 Apr 06
 (b)      MCO P1610.7F w/Ch 1-4
1.       Per MCO 16l0.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
with three members present, met on 16 August 2006 to consider
         contained in reference (a). Modification of the fitness report covering the period 20030119 to 20030731 (CM) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the reports.
2.       The petitioner contends that the reviewing officer’s comparative assessment and comments are substantially unjust, procedurally flawed and do not present a fair or accurate assessment of his performance.
3.       In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the report covering the period 20030119 to 20030731 (CH) is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       The petitioner offers an advocacy letter from the reviewing officer which requests that the report now be marked “insufficient observation” vice “sufficient observation.” The reviewing officer contends that he had almost no interaction or communication with the petitioner during the reporting period. Upon review of the report, the Board found that when the fitness report was submitted, the reviewing officer signed item “K-5” which states, “I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief all entries made hereon are true and without prejudice or partiality.” The Board also found that he made meaningful comments concerning the petitioner’s performance..
b.       After thorough review of the comparative assessment markings and section “K” comments, the Board finds no evidence that the markings and comments do not accurately reflect the


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

petitioner’s performance during the reporting period as attested to by the reviewing officer’s signature.
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
 vote, is that the contested fitness report, covering the period
20030119 TO 20030731 (CH), should remain a part official military record.
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

























2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07291-05

    Original file (07291-05.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. Because of the requirement to comment on potential as well as their critical role inISubj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR ~ USMCsafeguarding the integrity of the PES, reviewing officer’s should make every...

  • 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01098-07

    Original file (01098-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 203705100BJGDocket No:1098-071 March 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 reports for 31 (sic) September 2001 to 10 March 2002 and 11 March to 30 June 2002 be modified, in accordance with the reviewing officer’s (RO’s) letter dated 11 August...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10190-06

    Original file (10190-06.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 the provisions of 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 prepared.” In this case, the Board...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11149-06

    Original file (11149-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    y1~/DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:11149-0625 January 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 that the fitness reports for 10 August to 31 December 2002, 1 June 2003 to 31 May 2004 and 1 June to 1 December 2004 be modified, in accordance with the reviewing officer (RO) letter dated...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10085-06

    Original file (10085-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You also requested that the report for 1 April to 23 August 2004 be modified, in accordance with the reviewing officer’s (RO’s) letter dated 3 January 2006, by raising the mark in section K.3 (RO’s “Comparative Assessment”) from the lowest of eight possible to the third best.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 December 2006. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04858-06

    Original file (04858-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:4858-068 December 2006This is in reference to your letter dated 24 May 2006 with enclosure, submitted in response to the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 28 April 2006. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...

  • 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 | CY2006 | 08818-06

    Original file (08818-06.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. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 2 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06240-06

    Original file (06240-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No: 6240-0630 November 2006This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title ~0 of the United States Code, section 1552.You requested that the fitness report for 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005 be modified by removing section K (reviewing officer (RO) marks and comments).A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval...