DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BUG
Docket No: 6177-06
28 September 2006
United States Code, section 15582.
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 28 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 (HQMC) Performance
Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 11 July 2006, and the
advisory opinion from the HOMC Officer Counseling Section,
Personnel Management Division, dated 4 August 2006, copies of
which are 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.
Since the Board found no defect in your performance record, it
had no grounds to remove either of your failures of selection by
the Fiscal Year 1997 and 1998 Reserve Major Selection Boards.
Since the Board found insufficient basis to remove either of
your failures of selection to major, it had no grounds to set
aside your discharge from the Marine Corps Reserve on
1 April 1998 or promote you to major. 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 PFEIF
Executive Dir
Enclosures
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103
MMER/PERB
JUL LL 2589
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
[Tt]
MEMORANDUM FOR THI
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
ee ee aa at mis — ee ee a ta pak ms , USMC
Ref: WOM DD Form 149 of 1 Feb 06
TE w/Ch 1-6
1. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
with three members present, met on 5 July 2006 to consider
ia Meeoetition contained in reference (a).
Modification of his fitness reports covering the periods 19901101
to 19901221 (CD), 19901222 to 19910327 (CH), 19910823 to 19920510
(CH) and 19920511 to 19920816 (TR) was requested. Reference (b)
is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of
the report.
2. The petitioner requests four fitness reports be corrected to
reflect a category of outstanding.
a. The petitioner contends, “had I not been targeted for
reprisal for not showing up at MCRD, Parris Island like I was
originally suppose to, I would have received fitness reports that
were outstanding in nature.” The petitioner recites a series of
events that delayed his arrival to MCRD, Parris Island, which
angered the CG, MCRD Parris Island and led to him receiving less
than outstanding fitness reports. However, he fails to provide
evidence to substantiate his clain.
b. The Board concluded that all four reports were submitted
in the spirit and intent of reference (b), are a positive account
of satisfactory performance, and reflect overall evaluations of
“excellent to outstanding” and “excellent”.
NETO REFER TO:
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVI!
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR
4
EW BOARD (PERB)
APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
BC AS cae ay
Pres
The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
is that the contested fitness reports, should remain a part
ie aia EER is a: official military record as
En
5. The case is forwarded for final action.
£
C. F. SWAIN
Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps
Deputy Director
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VA 22134-5103
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1600
MMOA- 4
4 Aug 06
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION
OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:
Ref: (a) MMER Reque
of ss pci ‘ x
of 31 Jul 06
1. Recommend disapproval of* me request for
removal of his failure of selection from the FY97 and FY98
USMCR Major Selection Boards.
2. Per the reference, we reviewed ae copies tial record
and petition. He failed selection on the FY97 and FY98 USMCR
Major Selection Boards. Subsequently he petitioned the
Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) to modify CD report
19901101 to 19901221, CH report 19901222 to 19910327, CH
report 19910823 to 19920510 and TR report 19920511 to 19920816
and to remove his failure’of selection.
3. The PERB’s decision on 11 Jul 06 was that the petitioned
reports were both administratively correct and procedurally
complete as written and filed. The PERB concluded that the
petitioned reports should remain a part of, at
official military record. As there is no change :
fecord, we recommend disapproval of his request for
removal of his failure’of selection.
4. Point of contact is Lieutenant Colonel J. M. Morrisroe,
(703) 784-9281.
Z M. MORRISROE ,
we Lieutenant Colonel, USMC
« Head, Officer Counseling and
Evaluation Section
Personnel Management Division
Vs
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05613-00
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 14 August 2000, and a memorandum for the record dated 11 July 2001, copies of which are attached. nd Lieutenant Colon challenged report centers around the accuracy...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05075-02
Petitioner's NJP. Based on the documentary evidence "that for good consideration and after Similarly, Petitioner was informed of his right to demand the NJP proceeding was conducted rec'eived all the rights to which he was Petitioner was advised of his right to counsel provided by Petitioner, properly and Petitioner entitled at NJP. Petitioner understanding his rights at NJP is the fact Petitioner also elected to have a s in fact p NJP, a had a right to submit written matters for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06373-06
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 | 06678-06
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 | CY1999 | 02227-99
The Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) reviewed the petition and denied the request. (3) This report also did not appear before the FY98 Board. e. Written comments by Reporting Seniors and Reviewing Officers.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04072-00
You again request that this fitness report be removed, and you add a new request for consideration by a special selection board for promotion to lieutenant colonel. petitioner alleges that senior officers, career counselors, and at least one monitor, him of fair consideration for command, promotion, and school selection. record and FYOl 0 and Subsequently, he Senior fitness requests removal of In our opinion, removing the petitioned report would have 3. significantly increased the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06691-01
The Board found the reviewing officer permissibly referred to matters outside the reporting period in question, in order to reply to issues you raised in your rebuttal to the contested fitness report. 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. As an adverse fitness report, the petitioner was afforded his rightful opportunity to acknowledge and respond...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10085-06
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 | CY1999 | 01309-99
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. You further contend that the asterisk, which indicates a fitness report was referred to the Marine concerned for a chance to make a statement, contributed to your failures by the Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 and 1998 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards. In our opinion, all three boards were able to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01414-06
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 modifying the fitness report for 22 June to 30 September 2002 to show a section K.3 (reviewing officer’s comparative assessment”) mark of fourth best of eight possible marks, vice fifth best. As indicated in enclosure (2), the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board has...