Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07475-06
Original file (07475-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
 BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


 BJG
 Docket No: 7475-06
 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.
A three-member panel of the Bo rd 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 16 August 2006, a copy of which is attached. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated 6 September 2006.
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. 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. For the same reason, the Board found the absence of a promotion recommendation from the contested RO comments in the report for 1 June to 19 September 2003 did not render those comments adverse. If you are correct that the RO who reviewed the report for 1 June to 19 September 2003 was not the “normal” RO, the Board found the failure to acknowledge this as required would not invalidate the RO’s comments; and his not being the “normal” RO would not, in itself, render his comments unjust, even if the “normal” RO’s comments might have been more substantive. Finally, the Board did not find the contested RO comments to be ambiguous. 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,









Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103
                                    IN REPLY REFER To:
                                                                                                    1610
                                                                                                    MMER/ PERB
          AUG 16 2005

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) Major XXXX SD Form 149 of 21 Mar 06
 (b)      MCO P16l07®w/Ch 1-8
1.       Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 9 August 2006 to consider petition contained in reference (a) . Removal of the fitness reports covering the periods 20010801 to 20020531 + the RO Comments be removed from the report for 20030601 to 20030919 (TR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the reports.
2.       The petitioner contends that the reports are inaccurate and unjust because the reporting senior and reviewing officer made inappropriate comments in sections “I” and “K”. The petitioner also feels the comments are non-commendatory and adverse in nature, and he believes that he should have been afforded the opportunity to review the reports and provide rebuttal statements. Finally, the petitioner believes that the reviewing officer failed to make promotion recommendations on both reports.
3.       In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the reports covering the periods 20010801 to 20020531 (CH) and 20030601 to 20030919 (TR) are administratively correct and procedurally
 complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       Concerning the fitness report covering the period 20010801 to 20020531 (CH), per paragraph 4012.2 of reference (b), reporting senior’s are required to make mandatory comments to provide a more complete and detailed evaluation of the MRO’s professional character, conduct, and performance. In this case, the Board found that the section “I” comments were written in compliance with the order. The Board also found that there are










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

no vague, ambiguous, or derogatory remarks made by the reporting senior. In fact, each one simply addresses the petitioner’s performance and both actually praise the petitioner’s efforts.

 b.       In regard to the fitness report covering the period 20030601 to 20030919 (TR), per paragraph 4012.2 of reference (b), if sufficient observation is indicated, the reviewing officer must provide comments on the MRO’s performance during the reporting period. The Board found that if the reviewing officer chooses to amplify the comparative assessment, he/she should comment on the MRO’s development as it relates to promotion, command assignment, resident PME, and retention. In this case, the Board also found that the reviewing officer was not required to make a promotion recommendation.
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness reports, covering the periods 20010801 to 20020531 (CH) and 20030601 to 20030919 (TR) , should remain a part of military record.

5.       The case is forwarded for final



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 | 11149-06

    Original file (11149-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    y1~/DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:11149-0625 January 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 that the fitness reports for 10 August to 31 December 2002, 1 June 2003 to 31 May 2004 and 1 June to 1 December 2004 be modified, in accordance with the reviewing officer (RO) letter dated...

  • 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | CY2002 | 04197-02

    Original file (04197-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Report A - 990827 to 991231 (AN). Report C - 000630 to 001231 (AN). Evaluation Review Board, request for May 2002 to consider Staff removal of his fitness report for the period 010101 to 010209 Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive (CH).

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10160-06

    Original file (10160-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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,ROBERT D. ZSALMAN Acting Executive DirectorEnclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS3280 RUSSELL ROAD QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERBNOV...

  • 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 | CY2006 | 08818-06

    Original file (08818-06.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 Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 2 October 2006, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was...