Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03925-06
Original file (03925-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


 BJG
 Docket No:3925-06
 7 September 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.
You requested, in effect, that the fitness reports for 21 May 2002 to 14 April 2003 and 31 May 2003 to 19 March 2004 be modified by deleting from section I (“Directed and Additional Comments”) the corrunent “Promote with peers.” You also requested completely removing the report for 20 March 2004 to 31 March 2005.
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 20 March 2004 to 31 March 2005 by removing section K (reviewing officer marks and comments)
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 September 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 1 May 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.
Specifically regarding the contested fitness report for 20 March 2004 to 31 March 2005, the Board was unable to find this report was in reprisal for your request mast of 10 May 2004 alleging improper leadership by the reporting senior (RS). The board particularly noted that the commanding officer (CO) who recommended that this report be given less weight than others in your record did not assume command until 18 April 2005, after the RS had submitted the report on 7 April 2005, and the CO acknowledges he had no firsthand observation of your performance. The Board also noted that while you did provide a complimentary statement from a sergeant major who served with you during the pertinent period, you submitted no statement from
 immediate supervisor during that period. Finally, the Board was unable e RS failed to mention achievements that should have been cited, as you did not specify which of the matters you had identified for him were not included in the report.
In view of the above, your application for relief beyond that effected by CMC 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, wi th naval record, existence of pro ven applying for a correction of an official e burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the probable material error or injustice.

on both of the aforementioned reports — “Promote with peers”, the Board concluded that it is not adverse in nature. The Board also noticed that the advocacy letter submitted by the petitioner comes from the reviewing officer of one of the reports and not the reporting senior. Therefore, they believed it would be inappropriate to remove the reporting senior’s remarks.


b.       Per paragraph l003.ld and 4014.2d of reference (b), reviewing officer’s must ensure narrative portions of the evaluation are clear in their meaning and free of ambiguities and innuendos. Further, at a minimum reviewing officer’s should amplify his or her comparative assessment mark, and evaluate the MRO’s potential for continued professional development to include promotion, command assignment, resident PME, and retention. In the case of the report covering the period 20040320 to 20050331 (AN), there is no evidence that the reporting senior’s section “I” comments were biased or unfair. However, the reviewing officer violates the above tenets when he wrote: “Performance commensurate with grade” and “With increased efforts from MRO, potential for future promotion is good.” The Board concluded that the first sentence is vague and has no substance and the second sentence is counseling in nature.
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report covering the periods 20020521 to 20030414 (TD) and 20039531 to 20040319 (TR) should remain a part of official military record. The Board also voted to expunge section “K” in its entirety on the petitioner’s report covering the period 20040320 to 20050331 (AN)
5. The case is forwarded for final ac tion.


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06258-06

    Original file (06258-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 10 July 2006 with attachment, 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 ROADQUANT100, VIRGINIA...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03521-09

    Original file (03521-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, in only 60 days since the end of his last reporting period, I cannot say that he has moved up in his peer ranking.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 June 2009. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 1 April 2009, a copy of which is attached. Removal of the fitness reports for the periods 19990101...

  • 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 | CY2007 | 04966-07

    Original file (04966-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 25 May 2007, a copy of which is attached. In regard to the fitness report covering the period 20050414 to 20051210 (FD), the Board found that per paragraphSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF8007.3 of reference (b), reporting officials may add supplemental material after the facts, and as...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04310-07

    Original file (04310-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OOBJGDocket No:4310-0714 June 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.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) hasdirected modifying the contested fitness report for 1 April 2004to 31 March 2005 by changing the ending date, from 31 March 2005to 27 April 2005; and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06116-09

    Original file (06116-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You also requested completely removing the fitness report for 15 November 2004 to 30 May 2005 and modifying the report for 1 June to l September 2005 by removing the entire section K (RO marks and comments) or, if that modification is denied, raising the mark in section K.3. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing all the contested comments from sections I and K.4 of the report for 14 June to 3 August 2004; modifying the report for 15 November 2004 to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5198 14

    Original file (NR5198 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested removing the fitness reports for 1 January to 25 June 2007, 11 July to 31 December 2009 and 19 May to 31 December 2010. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report for 1 January to 25 June 2007 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “MRO [Marine reported on] is assigned to the Body Composition Program.” and “SECT[ion] A, Item 5a: MRO is currently assigned to the Body...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 09754 12

    Original file (09754 12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying all four contested fitness reports, as follows: 1 August to 31 December 2009: From section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), remove “I fully expect MRO [Marine reported on] to continue making improvements and if he does” and “with his peers.” 26 June to 6 December 2010: From section K.4 (reviewing officer’s comments), remove “As a Sergeant of Marines MRO is still developing his...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00839-09

    Original file (00839-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 10 January to 28 February 2006 by restoring the mark in section A, item 6.b (“Derogatory Material”) whose removal CMC had directed in your previous case, docket number 5661-08; removing, from the section D.1 (“Performance”) justification, “MRO [Marine reported on] was relieved of duties for violating Depot Order P1510.30L on three separate occasions.” and “because on another...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07860-08

    Original file (07860-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is further noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the report by removing, from section I (reporting senior (RS) “Directed and Additional Comments”) “DIRECTED COMMENT -—- SECT A, ITEM 7b: I recommend that the MRO [Marine reported on] not be promoted with contemporaries.” And completely removing section K (reviewing officer (RO) marks and comments). A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session,...