Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04330-06
Original file (04330-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
                           BJG
         Docket No: 4330-06
         7 December 2006

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.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 December 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 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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERE. The Board was unable to find you were not counseled about perceived deficiencies, noting the reporting senior says you had both formal and informal counseling on numerous occasions. In this regard, the Board generally does not grant relief on the basis of an alleged absence of counseling, as counseling takes
 many forms, so the recipient may not recognize it as such when it is provided. 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.











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 Di rector


Enclosure





































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



                                             I N REFER TO:
M MER/PERB
OCT 26 2006
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)

         Ref:     (a)      DID Form 149 of 7 May 06
                  (b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-9
1.       Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with present, met on 18 October to consider petition contained in reference (a) . Removal of the fitness report covering the period 20050616 to 20051031 (SA) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.       The petitioner contends that the adverse report is unfair and contains obvious inaccuracies. The petitioner addresses seven areas that he perceives to be inaccurate.
3.       In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the report covering the period 20050616 to 20051031 (SA) is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written arid filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       The Board found that the petitioner acknowledged the reporting senior’s adverse evaluation and submitted a seven page rebuttal. The reviewing officer thoroughly adjudicated the differences between the evaluation and the petitioner’s rebuttal contentions.
b.       The Board also found that the petitioner offers no new arguments that were not previously considered and addressed by the reviewing officer. The Board concluded that the petitioner in fact had his issues resolved when the general officer sighter presented his succinct review of the entire report and concluded there are no further unresolved factual inconsistencies or disagreements, or new information requiring further comment.”


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

4. The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report, covering the period 200506l6to 20051031 (SA), should remain a part official military record

5. The case is forwarded for final action.

Chairperson, Perform a nce
Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps





























2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01458-07

    Original file (01458-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:1458-079 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.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 13 May to 31 October 2005 by removing section K.4 (reviewing officer’s comments)A three-member...

  • 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 | 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 | CY2006 | 08392-06

    Original file (08392-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR C0RRECT~ON OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OOBJGDocket No:8392-0616 October 2006This 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 2 July 2002 to 4 April 2003 and 5 April to 29 August 2003.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness...

  • 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 | CY1999 | Document scanned on Mon Sep 25 11_43_12 CDT 2000

    Original file (Document scanned on Mon Sep 25 11_43_12 CDT 2000.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition to challenging Report C based on perceived violations of reference (c), the petitioner also believes the report reflects more of Lieutenant Co1one1-~~’s bias against him than actual performance. In addition, Lieutenant ColoneElLllIIIIJwas the 2 Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR ___ USMC petitioner’s Reporting Senior for the prior three month report, and was the Reviewing Officer on two other...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09715-06

    Original file (09715-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Per MOO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 18 October 2006 to considerpetition contained in reference (a) Removal of the fitness report covering the period 20040511 to 20040802 (FD) was requested. The petitioner was correct in saying that he was not able to directly confront the reporting senior on the adversity because his parent command ( 4 t~~ MEB) chose not to send him back to Columbia.However, he was afforded the opportunity to...

  • 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 | CY2007 | 11213-07

    Original file (11213-07.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 this case, the Board found the petitioner contends that his lack of training and inadequate manpower affected his ability to perform his mission. The Board concluded that the reports are an accurate and honest assessment of the petitioner’s overall performance during the reporting periods.5.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09701-06

    Original file (09701-06.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 l610.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 18 October 2006 to...