Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06257-06
Original file (06257-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

BJG
         Docket No: 6257-06
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 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 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,




W.       DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Enclosure



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

IN REPLY REFER TO:

1610
MMER/ PERB
JUL 11 2006

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

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

Ref:     (a)      Master Sergeant XXXX DD Form 149 of 23 Feb 06
         (b)      MCO Pl610.7E w/Ch 1-9

1.       Per MCO l610.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 5 July 2006 to consider Master Sergeant XXXX petition contained in reference (a) . Removal of the fitness report for the period 20040905 to 20050518 (TR) 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 that he was erroneously blamed for failing to supervise School of Infantry’s funeral detail and relieved of his duties.

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 500l.la of reference (b), reporting senior’s must document and report unsatisfactory performance, lack of potential, or unacceptable professional character. The reporting senior does not report minor mistakes unless they are significant enough to affect the MRO’s initiative and leadership potential, or hinder mission accomplishment. In the case, the petitioner was relieved for cause and the reporting senior felt that the incident was severe enough to report as adverse. Further, the reviewing officer supported the reporting senior’s assessment and answered the MRO’s rebuttal. The third officer sighter confirmed its validity.

         b.       Upon review of documentation, which was provided by the petitioner, the Board found that the petitioner fails to provide evidence to support his claim that the report is unjust. The Board found that the petitioner did prove that his shop was responsible for the management of funeral requests per XXXXX









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

4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part of Master Sergeant XXXX official military record.

5.       The case is forwarded for final action.




Chairperson, Performance
Evaluation Review Board
         Personnel Mangement Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps



























2

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 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 | CY2007 | 00893-07

    Original file (00893-07.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. Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report in question, you may submit the reporting senior’s endorsement dated 28 August 2006, on your application to this Board, to future selection boards.It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action...

  • 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 | 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 | CY2007 | 02627-07

    Original file (02627-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 5 March 2007, 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 case, the Board found that there is no clear cut evidence to support the petitioner’s claim that this was an...

  • 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 | CY2007 | 01006-07

    Original file (01006-07.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 requests that his choice of “M” (master sergeant) in section “A”, item 8(c) on both reports be changed to reflect “F” (first sergeant). However, the reviewing officer on the report covering the period 20050~01 and 20060630 (AN) clearly stated in his section “K—4” narrative...

  • 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 | CY2001 | 08255-01

    Original file (08255-01.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. They were likewise unable to find that you were not given a chance to submit an “MRO [Marine reported on] worksheet” or that you were not given a chance to discuss your billet description with the reporting senior. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation 000425 to 000717 The petitioner...