Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06258-06
Original file (06258-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OO

 BJG
 Docket No: 6258-06
 11 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.
You requested, in effect, that the fitness report for 2 May 2004 to 31 March 2005 be removed, leaving in the record the report for 3 May 2004 to 31 March 2005.
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the uncontested report for 3 May 2004 to 31 March 2005.
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 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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB. Although the removed report was submitted and received less than a month after the contested report, neither the reporting senior nor the reviewing officer has submitted any information to support a conclusion that the removed report is more fair and accurate than the original. In view of the above, your application for relief other than that effected by CMC has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
Although the Board voted not to restore the removed report to your record, you may submit a copy of this report to future selection boards.

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
         QUANT100, VIRGINIA 22134-5103
         IN RELPY REFER To:
 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 APPLI,C1~TION IN THE CASE OF
         
         Ref:     (a) Sergeant XXXX DD Form 149 of 8Mar 06
 (b) MCO P1610.7E w/Chl—9
1.       Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 5 July 2006 to consider Sergeant petition contained in reference (a) . Removal of the fitness report for the period 20040502 to 20050331 (AN) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends the report should be removed because he has two fitness reports covering the same period in his record.
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.       The fitness report covering the period 20040502 to 20050331 (AN) was received and processed on or about 12 May 2005. The fitness report covering the period 20040503 to 20050331 (AN) was received and processes on or about 26 May 2005. Since the report covering the period 20040502 to 20050331 (AN) was received first, the Board concluded that it is the correct report and an accurate assessment of the petitioner’s performance.
b.       To alleviate the problem of overlapping reports, the Board directed that the second report received by HQMC be expunged from the petitioner’s official record.
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part of Sergeant XXXXX official military record.









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

5.       The case is forwarded for final action.




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






























2
1610
1414ER/ PERB
 JUL 1 0
MEMORANDUM


 From:    Head, Performance Evaluation Review Branch
To:      Head, Personnel Management Support Branch
Subj:    CORRECTION TO NAVAL RECORD IN THE CASE OF SERGEANT
Ref:     (a) MCO 16l0.llC
1.       Per the reference, the Performance Evaluation Review Board has reviewed allegations of error and injustice in subject’s naval record and the following action is requested:

 a.       That subject’s naval record be corrected by removing the following fitness report:
 Date of Report    Reporting Senior          Period of Report
2 May 2005                20&40503 to 20050331 (AN)

 b.       That no “filler memorandum” be inserted in place of the removed report.
2.       Additionally, please ensure that any other files that may contain the subject matter identified in paragraph la above are purged of the documentation. Such documentation (paper form, tape, and security file microfiche) is to be returned to the PERB for retention.

 3. For Head, NI4SB-3l: Please correct the PES by removing any record of the fitness report i ‘t~ ~ ~ %n the paragraph above.





Copy to:
NMSB-31

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | CY2006 | 00933-06

    Original file (00933-06.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the uncontested “not observed” fitness report for 16 March to 1 June 2004. Per the reference, the Performance Evaluation Review Board has reviewed allegations of error and injustice in subject’s naval record and the following action is requested: a. That subject’s naval record be corrected by removing the following fitness report: Date of Report Reporting Senior Period of Report 29 June 2005 LtCol - 20040316 to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03925-06

    Original file (03925-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:3925-067 September 2006Dear SergeantThis 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”)...

  • 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 | 08393-06

    Original file (08393-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 29 August 2006, a copy of which is attached. In regard to the report covering the period 20020707 to 20030302 (TDi, the petitioner contends the report is inaccurate based on the reviewing officers non-concurrence with the reporting senior’s attribute markings. The Board concluded that Subj}: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07875-05

    Original file (07875-05.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed changing the ending date of the uncontested fitness report for 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000 from 30 June 2000 to 12 February 2000. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 15 September 2005, a copy of which is attached. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 14 September 2005 to...

  • 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 | CY2007 | 05791-07

    Original file (05791-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 19 June 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. Regarding the fitness report covering the period 20050401 to 20050629 (TR), the Board found that the petitioner does not provide...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07306-05

    Original file (07306-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 30 August 2005, 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. When reviewing the petitioner’s case, the Board concluded that the report is a valid “extended” report. The overlapping...

  • 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...