Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07215-06
Original file (07215-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


 BJG
 Docket No: 7215-06
 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 completely removing the fitness report for 1 August 1998 to 16 April 1999 or, as a second preference, modifying this report by removing section K (reviewing officer’s marks and comments)
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing section K of the contested report.
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 in concluding the contested fitness report, as amended, should stand. Accordingly, your application for relief beyond that effected by CMC 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 TO:
1610
 MMER/ PERB
 AUG 08 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)      XXXX DD Form 149 of 13 Apr 06
                  (b)      MCO P1610.7E

 1.       Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 2 August 2006 to consider Major XXXX petition contained in reference (a) . Removal of the fitness report covering the period 19980801 to 19990416 (TR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the reports.
2. The petitioner contends that the reviewing officer’s narrative assessment is adverse, however, the report was not marked adverse. He also believes that the reporting senior’s attribute markings were influenced by the reviewing officer.
3.       In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the report covering the period 19980801 to 19990416 (TR) is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed with the exception of the reviewing officer’s review. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       The Board found that the petitioner offers no substantiation that the reporting senior’s evaluation of his performance was not totally his independent assessment, nor did he offer any documentation or corroboration the reviewing officer somehow unduly influenced the reporting senior’s evaluation of him.
b.       Per paragraph 4012.5m of reference (b) unacceptable comments are, “Comments identifying minor limitations, shortcomings, occasional lapses, or weakness in an otherwise overall positive performance. These comments serve no constructive purpose, foster a zero defect mentality, are most often counseling comments for the MRQ, and not germane to the overall evaluation.” The Board found that the reviewing officer








Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) IN THE CASE OF

clearly marked section K-2 as concurring with the reporting senior’s evaluation, however, the comments are ambiguous and counseling in nature. The Board directed that section “K” be removed in its entirety to make the report correct.

4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report, covering the period 199980801 to 19990416 (TR), should remain a part official military record with the correction k mentioned in paragraph 3(b) of this letter.

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 | CY2007 | 09502-07

    Original file (09502-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~5 100BJGDocket No:9502-079 November 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 May to 15 November 1999 by removing section K (reviewing officer’s marks and comments)A...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03521-09

    Original file (03521-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, in only 60 days since the end of his last reporting period, I cannot say that he has moved up in his peer ranking.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 June 2009. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 1 April 2009, a copy of which is attached. Removal of the fitness reports for the periods 19990101...

  • 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 | 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 | CY2007 | 04365-07

    Original file (04365-07.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 4 May 2007, a copy of which is attached. Per MCO 1610.llc, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present met on 2 May 2007 to consideration...

  • 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 | 06201-07

    Original file (06201-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After thorough review, the Board found that the petitioner was not in the unit described in section “A”, item 2c, for the fitness report covering the period 20060301 to 20060424 (FD). Regarding the fitness report covering the period 20060801 to 20061020 (CH), the Board found that the reporting senior andSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OFreviewing officer are the rightful reporting officials for the period covered...

  • 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 | 01098-07

    Original file (01098-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 203705100BJGDocket No:1098-071 March 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 reports for 31 (sic) September 2001 to 10 March 2002 and 11 March to 30 June 2002 be modified, in accordance with the reviewing officer’s (RO’s) letter dated 11 August...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01480-07

    Original file (01480-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:1480-079 March 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 removing the contested fitness report for3 October 2003 to 31 March 2004; and Headquarters Marine Corps(HQMC) has directed modifying the...