Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05777-06
Original file (05777-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-51 00

 BJG
 Docket No: 5777-06
 10 August 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 10 August 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 June 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. Accordingly, 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,







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


                                    IN REPLY REFER TO:
                                                                                                    1610
                                                                                                    MMER/PERB
                                                                                                    JUN 2 2006
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
         
         Ref:     (a)      Gunnery Sergeant XXXXX DD Form 149 of 27 Mar 06
                  (b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-9

 I.       Per MCO l610.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 21 June 2006 to consider Gunnery Sergeant XXXX petition contained in reference (a).
 Removal of the fitness report for the period 20040609 to 20041015 (TD) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends the report should be removed because it is unjust and inaccurate. He feels that the reporting senior was personally biased and unfair in the evaluation after filing sexual assault charges against him. He also believes that his performance was based on one incident, instead of the whole reporting period. In support of his claim, the petitioner provides copies of the preliminary inquiry into the incident that cleared him of the sexual assault charge.
3.       In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       Per paragraph 1005.4 and 2010.6 of reference (b), personal biases have absolutely no place in the evaluation process and modifications to the reporting chain are authorized when there are unresolved conflicts and a lack of professional objectivity on the part of any reporting official. In this case, the Board found that the petitioner did not provide any substantive evidence to demonstrate that the reporting senior was biased in the evaluation.
b.       The Board also believed that the third officer sighter did a thorough job of putting the entire fitness report into






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

perspective. The third officer sighter agreed with the adverse nature of the fitness report and specifically disagrees with the petitioner’s contention that the reporting senior was biased. The Board found that the fitness report assesses the petitioner’s performance based on the entire reporting period and it is not based solely on one incident.

 c.       Finally, when provided the opportunity to rebut the adverse nature of the fitness report, the Board found that the petitioner did not address the declining performance characterized by both the reporting senior and reviewing officer. He also did not refute the fact that his ability to perform his job was negatively impacted by the revocation of his security clearance.
4. The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part of Gunnery Sergeant XXXXX official military record.

5. The case is forwarded for final action,




 Chairperson, Performance
 -        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 | CY2006 | 06257-06

    Original file (06257-06.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 11 July 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 | CY2007 | 09135-07

    Original file (09135-07.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 addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERE), dated 21 September 2007, a copy of which is attached, and your letter dated 28 October 2007.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01668-07

    Original file (01668-07.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. Per paragraph 2010.5 of reference (b), when the reporting senior is relieved for cause, the reviewing officer is required to take over the evaluation responsibilities. In this case, the Board found that after relieving the reporting senior, the reviewing officer felt he had sufficient...

  • 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 | CY2003 | 06069-03

    Original file (06069-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 August 2003. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. While you are correct that your record reflects no counseling entry about the incident cited in the contested fitness report, the Board was unable to were not counseled about the incident, noting that the third sighting...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02721-01

    Original file (02721-01.pdf) 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. The Board found the incident cited, described by your service record page 11 counseling entry, the reporting senior and the third sighting officer as “minor,” was nevertheless important enough to warrant mention in the contested fitness report. Reference fitness report for the period 971101...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10210-06

    Original file (10210-06.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 (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 8 November 2006, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC Manpower Information Operations, Manpower Management Information Systems Division (Mb), dated 21...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05798-01

    Original file (05798-01.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 the fitness report for 1 November 1992 to 15 January 1993. ’s e. Concerning the incident for which he received NJP, Petitioner states that while he was attending a recruiting conference with a Marine Corps gunnery sergeant (pay grade E-7) and master sergeant (pay grade E-8), the three of them went out on liberty;...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11165-06

    Original file (11165-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:11165-0623 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.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 1 January to 5 February 2002 by changing section K.6 to show you did not attach a statement...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02602-07

    Original file (02602-07.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. The petitioner contends the adversity of the report was based on hearsay statements of 15 students; he received no formal counseling from the reporting senior; he implies the report is improper, since it was returned by the third officer sighter for correction; and the report is unwarranted...