Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08533-06
Original file (08533-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

DEPARTMENT OF-Ti-IE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 BJG
 Docket No: 8533-06
 23 October 2006
From:    Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:      Secretary of the Navy
          Subj:    REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD
         Ref:     (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
End:     (1) DD Form 149 dtd 14 Apr 06 w/encls
 (2)      HQMC NI4ER/PERB memo dtd 19 Sep 06
(3)      Subject’s naval record
1.       Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that her naval record be corrected by removing the fitness report for 1 October 2004 to 31 August 2005, a copy of which is at Tab A. As shown in enclosure (2), the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) has directed modifying this report by removing the following from the reporting senior (RS) comments in section I:
She dictates activity of subordinates. [Petitioner] will develop into a seasoned administrator and leader with more experience dealing with senior service members and senior civilian personnel.
2.       The Board, consisting of Messrs. Hicks, Morgan and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 19 October 2006, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken of the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
3.       The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows:
 a.       Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy.
b.       Enclosure (1) was filed in a timely manner.
c.       Petitioner contends that the RS was personally biased against her, that the contested report was submitted late (on 9 January 2006), and that she was not counseled despite the decline in her marks. She dropped from primarily “E,” the third best of seven possible marks, in the immediately preceding report for 7 October 2003 to 30 September 2004, to primarily “C,” fifth best, in the report at issue, submitted by the same RS. She provided persuasive supporting statements concerning her allegation of bias.
d.       In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), the HQMC PERB has commented to the effect that the PERB found the RS had violated the principles that personal biases have no place in the evaluation process and that narrative portions of fitness reports must be clear and unambiguous. However, the PERB concluded that the contested report, without the comments whose removal was directed, “is administratively correct.”
CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting complete removal of the contested fitness report. The Board agrees with the PERB that Petitioner has established the RS was personally biased against her. Particularly noting her concern with the marks assigned in the report at issue, which were significantly lower than those in the preceding report from the same RS, the Board finds the PERB action to remove certain narrative only did not go far enough to remedy the injustice she suffered. In view of the above, the Board recommends the following corrective action:

RECONI4ENDAT ION:

 a.       That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing therefrom the following fitness report and related material:







2
         Period of Report
 Date of Report   Reporting Senior         From     To
9Jan06 ~ Oct 04 31Aug05

 b.       That there be inserted in Petitioner’s naval record a memorandum in place of the removed report, containing appropriate identifying data concerning the report; that such memorandum state that the report has been removed by order of the Secretary of the Navy in accordance with the provisions of federal law and may not be made available to selection boards and other reviewing authorities; and that such boards may not conjecture or draw any inference as to the nature of the report.
c.       That the magnetic tape maintained by HQMC be corrected accordingly.
d.       That any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to the Board’s recommendation be corrected, removed or completely expunged from Petitioner’s record and that no such entries or material be added to the record in the future.
e.       That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner’s naval record be returned to the Board, together with a copy of this Report of Proceedings, for retention in a confidential file maintained for such purpose, with no cross reference being made a part of Petitioner’s naval record.
4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above entitled matter.
 ROBERT D. ZSALMAN        JONATHAN S. RUSKIN
Recorder         Acting Recorder
3
5. The foregoing report of the Board is submitted for your review and action






Reviewed and approved:
4
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO VIRGINIA 22134-5103
IN REPLY REFER TO:
          1610
 NI4ER/ PERB
SEP 19 2J]Ob
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS


 Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION 6N BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
 Ref:     iWj~jU1mUMMhU~IU                  DD Form 149 of 14 Apr 06
         (b)     MCO P1610 7E wjCh 1-9

 1.       Per MCO 1610.11C the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 13 August 2006 to consider
 etition contained in reference (a) Removal of the fitness report for the period 20041001 to 20050831 (TR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive gove~ ing submission of the report.
2.       The petitio er contends the evaluation is an unjust appraisal of her performa ce as well as being personally biased. She also believes she was not sufficiently counseled during the reporting period. She provides evidence in the form of e-mail traffic and advocacy letters that attest to the impartiality of the reporting senio

3.       In its proc edings, the PERB concluded that the report is administrativel incorrect and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:

 a.       Per par graph 1003.ld and 1005.4 of reference (b), reporting senio ‘s are required to ensure narrative portions of an evaluation a e clear in their meaning and free of ambiguities. Further, person 1 biases have no place in the evaluation process. The Board found that in this case, the reporting senior appears to violate thes principles as evidenced by the section “I” comments and th correspondence provided by the petitioner.
b.       The Boa, d directed that the following sentences in setio ~“I” be eleted - “She dictates activity of subordinates.
 wi 1 develop into a seasoned administrator and leader with mor experience dealing with senior service members and senior civi ian personnel.” The Board concluded that these
 Subj:    MARINE CO PS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)


comments are ambiguous and gratuitous. By removing these comments, the report is a~inistratively correct.

 4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
 fficial military record with
 the correction delineated in paragraph 3(b) of this letter.

 5.       The ~ase ~r forwarded fo final ~ction.

—        “I

J.       L. TERRY
 Chairperson, Performance
Evaluation Review Bc~ard
 Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
 By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps




























2

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | CY2008 | 05725-08

    Original file (05725-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    c. Petitioner contends the contested fitness report, in which she received the lowest marks of her 17-year career, was the result of bias against her on the part of the reporting senior (RS) “and may have even been gender related.” She asserts the RS never explained to her why he had marked her so low, when his comments would appear to support higher marks. e. Petitioner provided supporting statements from a chief warrant officer, a lieutenant colonel and a gunnery sergeant (enclosures (2)...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03937-08

    Original file (03937-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    g. With his reconsideration request at enclosure (3), Petitioner provided a statement dated 27 March 2008 (document 1 of 14) from Master Gunnery Sergeant C---, the 3044 MOS Occupational Field Sponsor/Procurement Chief of the Marine Corps. In enclosure (6), Petitioner’s reply to the PERB report, he maintained his position that the fitness report at issue is unwarranted and that Colonel S--- was not authorized to act as the third sighting officer. Further, the Board finds persuasive the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08495-07

    Original file (08495-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    He may submit to HQMC (NMPR-2) a request for remedial consideration for promotion on the basis of the PERB action and the further action recommended by this Board, if it is approved.2. In enclosure (3) , Petitioner maintains that the RO’s letter fully justifies removing the report for 2 March to 30 June 2003.CONCLUSION:Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and notwithstanding enclosure (2), the Board finds an injustice warranting complete removal of the report for 2...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09822-10

    Original file (09822-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The PERB took this action because Petitioner “submitted compelling evidence to indicate that the RO’s evaluation may have been biased and possibly influenced by factors other than the petitioner’s performance.” The PERB denied Petitioner’s request to remove the entire report, because it found the RS had provided him performance counseling, the RS's marks and comments did not indicate any bias or unfairness, and Petitioner had “failed to sufficiently establish his claim that the RS’ part of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03139-06

    Original file (03139-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You further requested removing your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Active Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, on the basis that your record, as it was presented to that promotion board, included the contested original report, it did not include the revised report, and you allege it reflected identical RO marks and comments in the fitness reports for 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004 and 1 July to 20 December 2004. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted...

  • 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 | CY2006 | 09708-06

    Original file (09708-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 26 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 insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 18 October 2006 to...

  • 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 | 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...