Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07208-06
Original file (07208-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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


 BJG
Docket No: 7208-06
 22 September 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 September 1999 to 31 July 2000 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senio (ES) letter of 25 April 2006. by raising the marks in sections D.l (“Performance”) and D.2 (“Proficiency”) f on “E” (third best of seven possible marks) to “F” (second best); E.l (“Courage”), E.2 (“Effectiveness under Stress”) and E.3 (“Initiative”) from “D” (fourth best) to “F”; F.1 (“Leading Subordinates”) from “F” to “F”; F.2 (“Developing Subordinates”), F.3 (“Setting the Example”) and F.4 (“Ensuring Well-being of Subordinates”) from “D” to “E”; F.5 (“Communication Skills”) and 0.1 (“Professional Military Education”) from “E” to “F”; and 0.2 (“Decision Making Ability”) and H.1 (“Evaluations”) from “D” to “E.” You also requested that this report be further modified per the RS letter, by adding the justification offered for the changes to sections D.1, D.2, F.1, F.5 and 0.1. In addition, you requested that the fitness report for 11 June 2002 to 31 May 2003, submitted by a different RS, be modified, in accordance with the letter of 11 May 2006 from that RS, by raising the mark in section D.2 from “E” to “F”; raising the marks in sections E.1, F.2, F.3, F.4, F.5 and H.1 from “D” to “E”; and adding the justification provided for the change to section D.2.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 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 Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 8 August 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. The Board was unable to find the justifications offered for specific changes to marks reflected information previously unknown to the RS concerned. 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.

Although the Board voted not to modify either of the fitness reports in question, you may submit the RS letters 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,






Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103
                                                                                 IN RELPY REFER TO:
                                                                                          1610                                                                                                                 MMER/ PERB
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) XXXXX DD Form 149 of 15 May 06
 (b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-8
1.       Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 2 August 2006 to consider Lieutenant Colon ‘ petition contained in reference (a). Modification of his fitness reports covering the periods 19990902 to 20000731 (AN) and 20020611 to 20030531 (AN) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the reports.

2.       The petitioner requests that five attribute markings be changed from “F” to “F” and attribute markings be changed from “D” to “F” on the fitness report covering the period 19990902 to 20000731 (AN). He provides an advocacy letter from the reporting senior that states, “these changes will better reflect his (MRO’s) overall performance as it relates to my cumulative average on reports written on majors.” He also requests that seven attribute markings be changed on the fitness report covering the period 20020611 to 20030531 (AN). He provides an advocacy letter from the reporting senior that states, these changes better reflect the petitioner’s performance during this time period and how he relates to all other majors within profile.
3.       In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the reports covering the periods 19990902 to 20000731 (AN) and 20020611 to 20030531 (AN) are both administratively correct and procedurally
 complete as written and filed. The following is offered as
relevant:
a.       Per the provisions of paragraph 8007.2 of reference (b), the CMC “can approve a revised assessment of a Marine’s conduct or performance based entirely on facts about the Marine that were







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

unknown when the original report was prepared.” In this case, neither reporting seniors offer any specific facts to justify attribute marking upgrades that are based on the petitioner’s exhibited efforts and results that were overlooked when the reports were prepared.

 b.       After reviewing the reports, the Board concluded that the reports were an accurate assessment of the petitioner’s overall performance, as attested to by the reviewing officer’s signature’s in block KS of both reports.
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness reports, covering the periods 19990902 to 20000731 (AN) and 20020611 to 20030531 (AN) should
 remain a part of Lieutenant Colonel XXXX official military record.
5. The case is forwarded for final action




 Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps Deputy Director Personnel Management Division Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department
By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps















2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10218-06

    Original file (10218-06.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. The reporting senior is to also ensure these comments neither conflict or obscure the remainder Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) of the evaluation. The Board found that the section “I” comments do not conflict with the attribute markings and are in accordance...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05658-07

    Original file (05658-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370~s 100BJGDocket No:05658-0720 July 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.You requested, in effect, that the fitness report for 4 June 2005 to 30 June 2006 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior (RS) ‘s letter dated 17 Nay 2007, by raising the marks in sections D.l...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09124-07

    Original file (09124-07.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 (PERB), dated 21 September 2007, 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 | CY2008 | 00986-08

    Original file (00986-08.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Enclosure1610MMER/PERMEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDSSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFOMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OFRef: (a)Form 149 of 15 Jun 07(b) MC&PTflQ.7F1. In Support of his appeal, he has submitted a letter from the RS requesting the marks be changed.3. Section C of the report clearly states that MRO closed 170 trouble tickets, thus indicating that the RS did take thisSubj: MARINE CORPS...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10192-06

    Original file (10192-06.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. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 8 November 2006 to consider ~~~~fl*LlItpetit1on contained in reference (a) Modification of the fitness report covering the period 20050423 to 20050911 (CH) was requested. Per paragraph 8007.2 of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02605-07

    Original file (02605-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:2605-076 April 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.You requested, in effect, that the fitness report for19 August 2005 to 21 April 2006 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 4 September 2006, by raising the marks in sections...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 10223-05

    Original file (10223-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:10223-0516 April 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.You requested, in effect, that the fitness report for 1 October 2000 to 31 May 2001 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 3 January 2005, by raising the marks in sections...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02818-07

    Original file (02818-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 20 March 2007, a copy of which is attached. the Marine that were not known when the original report was prepared.” The Board found that the reporting senior’s advocacy letter does not explain how the five attribute marks of “D” are inaccurate and in error. The reviewing officer’s letter offers no explanation of what specifically about the petitioner’s performance...

  • 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 | CY2008 | 07857-08

    Original file (07857-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed the requested changes to sections E.2, F.1, F.3 and F.5; but with regard to sections D.2, E.1 and G.2, directed raising the marks to “E” rather than “F.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 October 2008. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB),...