DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BUG
Docket No: 8393-06
6 October 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 removing the fitness reports for 1 July 2001 to
30 June 2002, 7 July 2002 to 2 March 2003 and 1 August 2003 to
1 April 2004. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine
Corps (CMC) has directed removing the fitness reports for
1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002 and 1 August 2003 to 1 April 2004.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 5 October 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 29 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 remaining contested fitness report, for
7 July 2002 to 2 March 2003, should stand. The Board was unable
to find this report was in retaliation for the outcome of a
conflict between you and two Marine officers concerning the
marks assigned a junior Marine. The Board noted this report
properly did not mention your Navy and Marine Corps Achievement
Medal given on 12 May 2003, after the reporting period. The two
supporting statements you provided, dated 19 March 2006 and
10 October 2005, from a Marine Corps colonel and lieutenant
colonel, respectively, did not persuade the Board that you
warranted an appraisal other than that which you received. The
colonel was not in your fitness report chain; and the statement
from the lieutenant colonel related to your performance since
October 2004, after the pertinent reporting period. In view of
the above, 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,
Does
Executive Dire r
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103
INFER A REFER TO:
MMER/PERB
AUG 2 ¥ 2095
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
or
Ww
Os
eee
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
Ref: (a) wy Wa’ DD Form 149 of 26 Apr 06
(b) MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 2-9
¥
+. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
1 hnree memb sent, met on 23 August 2006 to consider
: Be petition contained in reference (a).
Remceval of his fitness reports for the periods 20010701 to
20020630 (AN), 20020707 to 20030302 (TD) and 20030801 to 20040401
(CH) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation
be
2 i
dc mot accurately assess his overall performance. His primary
a.tlegations focus on bias and an improper reporting chain.
3. In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report
covering the period 20020707 to 20030302 (TD) is administratively
correct anda procedurally complete as written and filed. The
reports covering the periods 20010701 to 20020630 (AN) and
20030801 to 20040401 (CH) are administratively and procedurally
incorrect. The following is offered as relevant:
a. Based on research by this headquarters, the PERB
concluded that the reviewing officer listed on the reports,
cover Ing the periods 20010701 to 20020630 (AN) and 20030801 to
C040401 (CH), was not the proper reporting official. Therefore,
che Board found that the reports are administratively and
procedurally incorrect and directed that the reports be expunged
from the petitioner’s record.
b. 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 ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
because the reviewing officer non-concurs with a reporting
senior’s overall evaluation, the report is not inaccurate. In
this case, both reporting officials articulated their opinions
and provided what they believe to be an accurate assessment of
the petitioner’s performance.
4. The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that the contested fitness report, covering the period,
20020707 to 2.0.0 303.02, (TD), should remain a part of Staff Sergeant
ae ve , Nia ficial military record and the reports
cove tng che periods 20010701 to 20020630 (AN) and 20030801 to
20040401 (CH) be expunged from his official military record.
Oi
The case is forwarded for final action.
foe “TER \
( Chairperson, Performance]
Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Managemerit Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01098-07
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 | 10085-06
You also requested that the report for 1 April to 23 August 2004 be modified, in accordance with the reviewing officer’s (RO’s) letter dated 3 January 2006, by raising the mark in section K.3 (RO’s “Comparative Assessment”) from the lowest of eight possible to the third best.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 December 2006. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00933-06
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 | 08818-06
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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11025-06
The board also found the reviewing officer gave credence to the observed evaluation when he concurred with the reporting senior’s report and offered an appraisal of his own.Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF Concerning the fitness report covering the period 20040601 to 20040704 (TD), covering 34 days, the Board found that the reporting senior, LtCol H---, extended the annual report that he completed in the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04310-07
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 | CY2007 | 01458-07
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:1458-079 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) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 13 May to 31 October 2005 by removing section K.4 (reviewing officer’s comments)A three-member...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08417-07
You requested removing the fitness report for 1 June 2005 to 18 January 2006.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report by removing section K (reviewing officer marks and comments)A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 November 2007. Per MCD 1610 11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 29 August...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04405-06
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 its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is administratively correct and procedurally complete with one minor error, the reporting senior made an adverse comment in section “C” of the report. The Board found that the reviewing officer concurred and addressed the allegation of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11161-06
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. After thorough review, the Board found that in regard to the fitness reports covering the periods 20040202 to 20041231 (AN) and 20050101 to 20050430 (CD), the reporting senior properly rendered both reports adverse. In regard to the fitness reports covering the periods 20050731 to 20051228...